Their Future and Success (English, PDF)

Transcription

Étudiants ayant des incapacités au cégep : Réussite et avenir
College Students with Disabilities: Their Future and Success
Final Report Presented to FQRSC
Rapport final présenté à FQRSC
Spring / Printemps 2006
Authors / Auteures
Catherine Fichten, Ph.D.123
Shirley Jorgensen, M.B.A.2
Alice Havel, Ph.D. 2
Maria Barile, M.S.W.1
With the Collaboration of / Avec la Collaboration de
Caroline Chwojka, B.A.17
Marie-Eve Landry, M.Ps.1
4
Mai N. Nguyen, B.Sc.1
Daniel Fiset, B.A.
Jean-Charles Juhel, M.Ed.5 Iris Alapin, M.A.1
Rosie Arcuri17
Sylvie Tétreault, Ph.D.6
Gabrielle Huard8
Vittoria Ferraro, B.Sc. 13
Rhonda Amsel, M.Sc.3
Adaptech Research Network / Réseau de Recherche Adaptech1
Dawson College2
McGill University3
Cégep du Vieux Montréal4
Cégep de Ste-Foy5
Université Laval6
Concordia University7
Association québécoise des étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire (AQEIPS)8
Étudiants ayant des incapacités au cégep : Réussite et avenir
College Students with Disabilities: Their Future and Success
Adaptech Research Network / Réseau de Recherche Adaptech1
Dawson College2
McGill University3
Cégep du Vieux Montréal4
Cégep de Ste-Foy5
Université Laval6
Concordia University7
Association québécoise des étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire (AQEIPS)8
Printemps / Spring 2006
Authors / Auteures
Catherine Fichten, Ph.D.123
Shirley Jorgensen, M.B.A.2
Alice Havel, Ph.D. 2
Maria Barile, M.S.W.1
With the collaboration of / Avec la collaboration de
Marie-Eve Landry, M.Ps.1
Daniel Fiset, B.A.4
Jean-Charles Juhel, M.Ed.5
Sylvie Tétreault, Ph.D.6
Vittoria Ferraro, B.Sc. 13
Caroline Chwojka, B.A.17
Mai N. Nguyen, B.Sc.1
Iris Alapin, M.A.1
Rosie Arcuri17
Gabrielle Huard8
Rhonda Amsel, M.Sc.3
La présente recherche a été subventionnée par le Fonds de recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC). Le contenu du présent
rapport n'engage que la responsabilité des auteures.
Dépôt légal — Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2006
Dépôt légal — Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 2006
ISBN 1-55016-974-2
3
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................ 5
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
GOALS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
METHOD .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................................................... 14
CONTACT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
SOMMAIRE..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
OBJECTIFS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
MÉTHODOLOGIE ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
RÉSULTATS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
RECOMMANDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
QUESTIONNAIRE SUR VOTRE EXPÉRIENCE AU CÉGEP ................................................................................................................. 26
INFORMATION POUR NOUS REJOINDRE ............................................................................................................................................... 27
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................ 28
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
GOALS ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: PPH MODEL (PROCESSUS DE PRODUCTION DU HANDICAP) .................................................................. 33
THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................................................... 35
OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
MEASURES......................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 47
ENROLLMENT: PROPORTION OF STUDENTS / GRADUATES REGISTERED TO RECEIVE DISABILITY RELATED SERVICES .................... 52
OPEN-ENDED DATA ABOUT FACILITATORS, OBSTACLES, AND THINGS TO CHANGE ........................................................................ 54
CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE: REFINING THE CEQ - PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSES ................................................................. 77
CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (CEQ): FACILITATORS AND OBSTACLES ................................................................................ 82
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER GRADUATION?........................................................................................................................................... 114
RESULTS IN BRIEF ........................................................................................................................................................................... 120
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 130
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS AND REPRESENTATION OF STUDENTS AND GRADUATES WITH DISABILITIES IN THE CEGEPS............ 130
USING THE CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (CEQ) TO FACILITATE STUDENT SUCCESS ........................................................ 132
WHAT FACTORS MAKE CEGEP STUDIES EASIER? HARDER? WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? .......................................................... 132
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER GRADUATION?........................................................................................................................................... 136
LIMITATIONS OF THIS INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................................ 136
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 138
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................................... 142
APPENDIX - CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE: ENGLISH AND FRENCH VERSIONS ................................. 149
ENGLISH VERSIONS: CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................................... 149
FRENCH VERSIONS: QUESTIONNAIRE SUR VOTRE EXPÉRIENCE AU CÉGEP ................................................................................ 149
Étudiants ayant des incapacités aux cégeps
College Students with Disabilities
4
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dawson College and the funding agency, Fonds de recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC),
for making this project possible.
5
Executive Summary - College Students with Disabilities: Their Future and Success
Spring, 2006
Catherine Fichten, Ph.D., Shirley Jorgensen, M.B.A., Alice Havel, Ph.D., Maria Barile, M.S.W.
With the Collaboration of
Marie-Eve Landry, M.Ps., Daniel Fiset, B.A., Jean-Charles Juhel, M.Ed., Sylvie Tétreault, Ph.D., Vittoria Ferraro, B.Sc., Caroline
Chwojka, B.A., Mai N. Nguyen, B.Sc., Iris Alapin, M.A., Rosie Arcuri, Gabrielle Huard, Rhonda Amsel, M.Sc.
Adaptech Research Network - Dawson College, Montréal
Executive Summary
Abstract
In this investigation we examined views about obstacles and facilitators of academic success as perceived by Cegep
graduates with and without disabilities as well as by Cegep based disability service providers and currently enrolled Cegep
students with a variety of disabilities. Because both student and service provider perspectives are valid and reflect different
aspects of the Cegep experience, information is needed about both views. The sampling also allowed us to determine
similarities and differences between the experiences of nondisabled graduates and of graduates with disabilities who did,
and those who did not, register to receive disability related services. It also enabled us to examine what happens to students
after they graduate from Cegep (i.e., find out whether they were employed, continuing their studies, or doing something
else) and to estimate what proportion of individuals with disabilities register to receive disability related services from their
Cegep.
To accomplish this we studied (a) Cegep based disability service providers, (b) students with all types of disabilities who
were enrolled at one of the 48 public Cegeps at the time of testing and who were registered to receive disability related
services, and (c) three groups of recent graduates (nondisabled, with a disability and registered to receive services, with a
disability and not registered to receive services). The graduates were sampled from three large Cegeps: Dawson College,
Cégep du Vieux Montréal, and Cégep de Sainte-Foy. Disabilities studied included: learning disability/ADD, mobility
impairment, hearing impairment, medically related condition, psychological disability, limitation in the use of hands/arms,
low vision, blindness, neurological impairment, Deafness, speech/language impairment, and PDD (pervasive developmental
disorder such as autism and Asperger’s).
The data collected allowed us to answer the following questions: In what programs are students with disabilities registered at
the college? What are graduates doing approximately one year after graduation? What are seen as personal, Cegep based, and
external community based facilitators and obstacles to academic success? What can students, Cegeps and community based
organizations do to facilitate the success outcomes of students with disabilities?
Here we summarize the findings and make recommendations for research and practice. Additional details are available in
the full report along with English and French versions of the measure we developed - the Cegep Experience Questionnaire
(CEQ) - in alternate formats.
6
Goals
To remove barriers, support success for students with disabilities in our postsecondary institutions and inform policy
developers it is imperative that accurate information reflecting realities of diverse aspects of the Cegep community be made
available to concerned groups and individuals so that they can: (a) help recruit, retain, and graduate students with
disabilities, (b) ensure that these students have appropriate opportunities for further education and employment after they
graduate, and (c) determine factors which influence the academic outcomes of students with disabilities that are unique to
them and that are not evident from studies of nondisabled students. The overall goal of the present research was to provide
such information which, ultimately, will help students with disabilities graduate and successfully compete for positions at
university and in the workplace.
To realize this goal in the present research we (1) conducted a systematic study of what Cegep based disability service
providers and current students with various disabilities perceive as important facilitators and obstacles in pursuing Cegep
studies and in succeeding in the system, and (2) explored post Cegep educational and vocational outcomes and views about
facilitators and obstacles of recent Cegep graduates with and without disabilities from both pre-university and
career/technical programs. Because we surveyed all graduates from the three Cegeps with the largest enrollments of
students with disabilities (i.e., Dawson College, Cégep de Ste-Foy, Cégep du Vieux Montréal), we were able to compare the
views of nondisabled graduates, graduates with disabilities who registered to receive disability related services from their
Cegep, as well as graduates with disabilities who did not register to receive services.
Specific goals were as follows
• Examine what makes it easier (facilitators) and harder (obstacles) for students with disabilities to succeed in their
Cegep studies
• Explore similarities and differences between nondisabled Cegep graduates and graduates with disabilities who
were and who were not registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep
• Describe what happens to students with disabilities after graduation
• Provide a questionnaire that evaluates academic obstacles and facilitators to students for use in institutional
evaluation
• Inform policy development and practice
Method
The study was carried out in three phases. Response rates were 83% (Phase 1), 32% (Phase 2), and 28% (Phase 3).
•
•
•
Phase 1 - 57 disability service providers completed the measures (Demographic Questions, Open-Ended EasierHarder-Change Questions, Cegep Experience Questionnaire) by telephone interview during the fall 2004 semester.
Phase 2 - 300 current students registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep completed similar
measures during the winter 2005 semester. At least four weeks later, 159 of them completed the measures a second
time (test-retest).
Phase 3 - 1486 recent graduates with and without disabilities from two French and one English Cegep completed
the same measures as well as the Post Cegep Questionnaire. 182 of these graduates indicated that they had a
disability. 1304 had no disability.
Results
Sample characteristics and representation of students and graduates with disabilities in the Cegeps. Although this
varied greatly, campus based disability service providers typically had seven years experience in the job and devoted an
average of one day per week to providing services to students with disabilities. Over half of the campus based disability
service providers reported that they had experience providing services to students with learning disabilities and mobility and
hearing impairments. However, less than half of them had experience providing services to students with medical and
psychological disabilities.
7
As is the trend in all postsecondary education, Cegep students with disabilities and all three groups of graduates were more
likely to be female than male. Consistent with the results of an earlier study where we found that Cegep students with
disabilities take one semester longer to graduate, in the present investigation we found that Cegep graduates with disabilities
are, on average, ½ year older than their nondisabled counterparts. The vast majority (over 90%) of both current students
with disabilities and all three groups of graduates were enrolled in a regular diploma program: approximately ½ in a preuniversity program and ½ in a career/technical program.
The nature of the impairments of those who register to receive disability related services from their Cegep has changed over
the years. Among the most common impairments of current students and graduates were: learning disability/attention deficit
disorder, mobility impairment, hearing impairment, medically related disability, and psychological disability. Also,
approximately 25% of those who registered for disability related services had two or more impairments.
The impairments of many students with disabilities no longer fit the original tripartite Québec Ministère de l’Éducation,
Loisir et Sport (MELS) division of visual impairment, hearing impairment, and "other." In fact, a learning disability, the
most common impairment reported by current students registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep, is
not funded according to the MELS’s traditional funding formula. Other common impairments of students include
psychiatric and psychological disabilities, impairments which are not recognized or funded by the MELS, and about which
disability service providers know relatively little.
We found that the proportion of Cegep students who are registered to receive disability related services has risen slightly
since 1999. This change, however, is not dramatic and it may not be keeping up with corresponding increases in other
provinces. Most troubling is that the percentage continues to be under 1% of the student body. Similarly, the percentage of
students registered to receive disability related services for whom the Cegeps receive funding from the MELS has improved
over the 1999 level, but only slightly. Currently, the Cegeps receive funding only for approximately ⅓ of the students who
are actually registered to receive services. This has resulted in serious service provision and funding issues. Cegeps handle
this problem in various ways. For example, some Cegeps have "waiting lists" for services.
Our study of graduates suggests that the actual proportion of Cegep students who self-identify as having a disability hovers
around 10%, but that most students with disabilities do not register to receive disability related services. The majority of
graduates with disabilities who had not registered for disability related services had medical, psychological, visual or
learning disabilities.
Registered vs. unregistered students. As is the case in the rest of North American colleges and universites, our results
suggest that the majority (approximately 90% in our sample) of students with self-reported disabilities in the Cegeps do not
register to receive disability related services or accommodations. Therefore, estimating the rate of disability in the Cegeps
using only those students who register significantly under-reports the actual rate. This also raises the question of whether
there really are, proportionally, very few students with disabilities who require disability related services in the Cegep
system or whether the students are enrolled, but, for a variety of reasons, do not register to receive disability related
services.
Nevertheless, because most students with disabilities are not registered to receive disability related services,
accommodations are often not made for them by faculty or staff. Therefore, there is increased need for universal
instructional design, which involves educational strategies that are accessible to all students, including those with
disabilities.
Funding issues. Extrapolation suggests that there are approximately 15,000 students with disabilities currently enrolled in
the Cegeps (i.e., approximately 10% of all Cegep students), although only about 10% of them register to receive disability
related services from their Cegep. In turn, Cegeps receive funding for only about ⅓ of students who are registered,
suggesting that there are serious financial concerns around providing services for students with disabilities.
The "emerging clientele." Reports from the disability service providers and from the managers in charge of services for
students with disabilities at the three “centre d’accueil” Cegeps show important trends in the types of impairments presented
by students to whom they provide services. Many of these are impairments for which Cegeps receive little or no funding
from the MELS. The trend over time shows that the "emerging clientele" of students with learning disabilities, psychiatric
and medical conditions has been increasing dramatically, resulting in even more important funding concerns. The "emerging
clientele" has also posed difficulties for disability service providers who feel inexperienced and inadequate in providing
services to many of these students.
8
Although the "emerging clientele" has translated into only very modest funding increases, the MELS has already instituted a
variety of changes in the Cegeps to ensure that students with learning disabilities receive increased attention.
Using the Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) to facilitate student success. We developed the content of the 32 item
closed-ended Cegep Experience Questionnaire and established that it has acceptable reliability and validity. Regular print,
large print and digital (Word) versions are provided in the Appendix of the full report in French and English. Although there
are no "norms," average scores for students with disabilities in general as well as for students with specific impairments are
provided in the full report.
What factors make Cegep studies easier? Harder? What should be changed? In general, all samples of participants
indicated more conditions that made academic studies easier than harder. This was especially notable in the case of Cegep
based factors, which were generally seen as both important and quite facilitating. Students' personal situations and
community and government based services were less so. In general, the more impairments a student reported having, the
more obstacles he or she encountered.
Disability service providers identified numerous issues related to their functions which they considered important to student
success. These include: good collaboration between professors and disability service providers; affordable diagnostic
services external to the Cegep, such as evaluations of learning disabilities; students’ ability to express their needs; the
attitudes of the administration toward services provided to students with disabilities; identification of students' individual
needs by the disability service provider; students’ awareness of the impact of their disability; the budget allocated for
disability services at the Cegep; willingness of students to use suitable accommodations; students' choice of career; and
professors’ level of knowledge about disability services and accommodations.
For the most part, individuals with and without disabilities reported similar facilitators as well as obstacles. Individuals with
disabilities who did not register for disability related services, however, had significantly and substantially less facilitating
scores overall, as well as on several Cegep environment related items, than nondisabled individuals or individuals with
disabilities who did register.
Good teachers, tutors and learning centers (which assist with studying, writing, and exam taking skills and provide tutoring),
and the availability of computers both on and off-campus were generally seen as important facilitators by current students
and all three groups of graduates. Friends, good schedules, easy and interesting courses and programs, a good financial
situation, good motivation and good study skills were also identified as facilitators. On the other hand, poor teachers,
difficult courses, poor schedules, having to hold a job, transportation problems, a poor financial situation, lack of access to
computers, having to take too many courses, poor study skills, demanding and boring programs, poor motivation, and
insufficient time were generally seen as obstacles.
Consistent with the finding that the availability and accessibility of computers, both at the Cegep and off-campus, were seen
as important facilitators, other investigations have also found that computers were rated as important facilitators by students
with disabilities. In addition, a recent investigation shows that computer use on the job is associated with higher salaries for
employees both with and without disabilities. Nevertheless, a comprehensive recent review, which showed that eLearning
initiatives are important in Canadian postsecondary education, also noted that very little is known about eLearning needs
and concerns of students with disabilities. Clearly, more research is needed.
Although level of personal motivation was rated as a very important facilitator by most students, it was seen as especially
facilitating by students with learning disabilities. This is consistent with other research which showed that personal
motivation was identified among the most important facilitators, along with family and friends, by students with learning
disabilities.
Nondisabled graduates and graduates with disabilities who were and who were not registered to receive disability related
services. The results also show that, overall, graduates with disabilities had significantly lower scores on personal situation
items as well as on the overall Index of Difficulty (IDF) than nondisabled graduates. Issues of concern to those with
disabilities include: poor health and the impact of their disability/impairment.
Improvements suggested by current students with disabilities as well as by graduates with and without disabilities were very
similar and were generally aimed at aspects of the Cegep environment. Of greatest importance to all groups were better
schedules, improving the college system, improving programs and courses in general, having better teachers, more available
9
computer technologies, support and help as well as improvements to the physical environment of the college. Changes
suggested by disability service providers generally focused on improving the accessibility of classrooms and facilities as
well as aspects of their services. Promoting collaboration and communication between staff, teachers and students,
increased funding for their services, and better availability of tutoring were also frequent suggestions among disability
service providers.
The data also suggest that it may be important for students with disabilities to register with their disability service provider.
For example, graduates with disabilities who registered experienced certain aspects of their Cegep environment, such as the
availability of computers and course materials, as more facilitating. They also had overall Index of Difficulty (IDF) scores
that were more facilitating than graduates with disabilities who did not register. In fact, graduates with disabilities who did
not register for services generally had the worst scores, especially on Cegep environment related items. The IDF score for
graduates who had registered for disability related services was similar to that for graduates with no disabilities. However,
when disability related items were excluded, the registered graduates had IDF scores that were, on average, more facilitating
than those of graduates without disabilities. This was not true for unregistered graduates.
Consistent with reports by others, individuals with disabilities who were registered to receive disability related services
from their Cegep overwhelmingly indicated that disability related accommodations were among the most important
facilitators, along with sensitization and information dissemination about disabilities to teachers. In the present investigation
specific accommodations seen as helpful were: having a note taker or interpreter in class, extended time for exams and
assignments, accessible facilities, as well as MELS and college policies which permit students with disabilities to take a
reduced number of courses and still be considered "full time students."
Not only has extended time been shown to be especially important to students with learning disabilities in other
investigations, but it has also been shown to improve their scores. This has been found to be the case for both algebra and
reading comprehension tasks where students with learning disabilities, who initially scored significantly lower than
nondisabled peers under regular timing conditions, improved their scores and did not differ from nondisabled peers when
both groups experienced extended time conditions.
Comparing students with disabilities and campus based disability service providers. In most cases students and service
providers agreed on which factors were important as obstacles and facilitators. Exceptions show that although students
identified a variety of "personal situation" variables as facilitators, such as friends, their schedule, computers off-campus,
physical adaptations at home, and their finances, disability service providers did not do so. Also, students noted the
following important obstacles that were not mentioned by service providers: too many and difficult courses, bad schedules,
the impact of their impairment, a problematic financial situation, and having to hold a job while studying.
Campus based disability service providers, on the other hand, indicated that a knowledgeable service provider, preregistration of students with disabilities for courses before other students register, the attitude and willingness of professors
to adjust their courses to students' needs, and good counselling and academic advising were important facilitators - factors
generally not noted by students with disabilities. On the other hand, although students did not identify these concerns,
service providers were dissatisfied with various aspects of the disability related services and accommodations that they
provide, with the lack of information and sensitization about disabilities in the Cegep, with having inadequate knowledge
about disabilities and accommodations themselves, and with students' poor self-advocacy skills. Indeed, self-advocacy skills
have long been seen as important for academic success by disability service providers and the importance of the evolving
role of faculty in the successful outcomes of students with disabilities has been stressed in several recent publications.
What happens after graduation? Our findings show little difference in the percentage of graduates with and without
disabilities who continued their studies after Cegep or in the percentages of those who were working full time or part time.
Similarly, there was no significant difference between the employment rates of graduates with and without disabilities.
The employment rates of graduates in career/technical programs was very high - over 95% for both graduates with and
without disabilities. Statistics Canada findings for people with and without disabilities in 2001 generally also showed little
difference in the employment rates of adults with and without disabilities. There is an important caveat, however, because
the overall statistics for Canada also show a huge difference between the proportions of people with and without disabilities
who are not in the labor force. This was not found for Cegep graduates, as the proportions of graduates with and without
disabilities who were studying or not available to the labor force for other reasons were very similar.
10
Also, there was no significant difference between graduates with and without disabilities concerning whether their
employment was related to their field of study. This was also found to be true of university graduates in a large U.S. study.
Indeed, the only important difference we found between graduates with and without disabilities was that graduates with
disabilities in career/technical programs were less likely than their nondisabled counterparts to obtain employment in a field
"closely" related to their field of study.
Conclusions
Overall, when it comes to individuals with disabilities in the Cegeps, the findings of this investigation show more positives
than negatives. The proportion of Cegep students with disabilities has increased during the past five years. Participants
reported substantially more facilitators than obstacles to student success, especially facilitators related to the Cegep
environment. And, graduates with and without disabilities continued their studies and successfully joined the labor force in
equal proportions.
There are, however, three major reasons for concern. First, the growth during the past five years in the number of students
with disabilities who registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep has been limited and remains under
1% of the student body, compared to the approximately 6% we found for the rest of Canada five years ago. Second, the
findings show that approximately nine out of 10 Cegep graduates who had a disability did not register for disability related
services. Furthermore, these unregistered graduates with disabilities experienced more obstacles and, in particular, more
Cegep related obstacles, than nondisabled graduates or graduates with disabilities who had registered for services. Third, the
findings highlight serious funding problems for Cegep based disability related services that need urgent attention.
Recommendations
Research recommendations.
Evaluate obstacles and facilitators to students with different impairments before and after changes are made to Cegep
policies and practices at the college.
• The Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) can be used to evaluate obstacles and facilitators for current students
with and without disabilities as well as in institutional research surveys of students and graduates
Routinely include questions related to students' disability status and the nature of their disabilities in research.
• Include disability related questions on all Cegep based surveys and make sure these are available in alternate
formats
• Include disability related questions on SRAM (Service régional d'admission du Montréal métropolitain) and SRAQ
(Service régional d'admission au collégial de Québec) surveys
Conduct research on the accessibility of eLearning and computer technologies.
• Given that the availability of computers and information technologies was seen as either an important obstacle or
an important facilitator, research on the accessibility of eLearning and computer technologies needs to be carried
out at the Cegeps
Evaluate the impact of funding of Cegeps' disability related services.
• The academic outcomes of students for whom the Cegeps receive funding should be compared to those of students
who are registered but for whom funding is not available (i.e., those with “recognized” vs. “not recognized”
disabilities). High school leaving grade can be used as a covariate or as a basis for equating the two groups of
students
11
Gather more information about students with disabilities who do not register to receive disability related services
• Those with disabilities who did not register for disability related services at their Cegep experienced more
obstacles to academic success than either individuals with disabilities who had registered for services or
nondisabled individuals.
• To ensure appropriate services to unregistered students with disabilities, more information is needed about them:
Why do they not register? What are their needs and concerns? How can their educational needs best be met when
they are not registered? Would they be better off academically if they were to register?
• There is a need to compare the academic outcomes of students with disabilities who are registered to receive
disability related services and those who are not. Here, too, high school leaving grade can be used as a covariate or
as a basis for equating the two groups of students
Evaluate the effectiveness of each type of Cegep based disability accommodation for students with different disabilities.
• Disability related accommodations were among the most important facilitators for individuals with disabilities
Conduct prospective and retrospective studies to investigate what happens to Cegep graduates.
• What happens to Cegep graduates with disabilities?
• Since such a large proportion of Cegep graduates continue their studies, how do graduates with disabilities fare at
university compared to their nondisabled peers?
• How do the careers of technical program graduates, including their salaries, progress in the long term?
Practice recommendations. These are intended primarily for MELS and college personnel, including campus based
disability service providers, faculty, managers of disability related resources, personnel responsible for student services,
financial aid, information and computer technologies, professional development, etc.
There is a need for evidence based practice in providing disability related funding, services and accommodations in the
Cegeps.
• Inform campus based disability service providers about relevant research findings to promote evidence based
practice
• Use the newly developed Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) in program evaluation and in evaluations of how
students with disabilities are faring at the Cegep
• Disability service providers can regularly administer the (CEQ) to their clientele to provide a snapshot of students'
current situations. This can help improve services by incorporating the students' views, tracking changes over time,
evaluating the impact of any improvements, and providing evidence to facilitate decision making by Cegep and
MELS based administrators
There are fewer students with disabilities who are registered to receive disability related services in Québec's colleges
compared to other provinces. Also, relatively few Cegep students with disabilities are registered to receive disability related
services from their Cegep. In addition, appropriate accommodations and information dissemination about disabilities to the
college community were seen as especially facilitating. This suggests that there is a need for greater visibility of disability
related services and accommodations in a variety of contexts.
• Increase the visibility of disability related services at the college to incoming students by sending pamphlets to all
students upon admission to the Cegep
• Develop a college guide for students with disabilities which provides information about the types of
accommodations, resources and facilities available, and information about successful outcomes of students with
disabilities, and make this available to all students, not only those with disabilities
• Develop a promotional video and pamphlet to discuss the services available to students with disabilities in the
Cegeps. Include services that could benefit students with learning, psychological/psychiatric, and medical
disabilities
• Publicize the success of students with disabilities and the availability of disability related services in various
settings (e.g., within the Cegep, in high schools, in rehabilitation centers, to community groups, to the Ordre des
conseillers et conseillères d’orientation et des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, to Emploi
Québec, to adapted employment centres such as the SEMOs)
• Include information on disability related accommodations available at the Cegeps at open house and high school
visits
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
High school professionals and teachers need to motivate high school students with disabilities to attend Cegep
Include disability related information in SRAM (Service régional d’admission du Montréal métropolitain) and
SRAQ (Service régional d'admission au collégial de Québec) publications such as the "Guide aux études" and the
"Guide général d'admission"
Given the high priority accorded by both students with disabilities and disability service providers to sensitizing
and informing others about disabilities, design and distribute promotional materials to sensitize and inform college
personnel, especially faculty, about disabilities and appropriate accommodations
Promotional materials could be designed and distributed to all college personnel, with a special emphasis on
faculty
Promote the benefits of registering for disability related services in Cegep newsletters, web sites, and other
publications
Suggest to faculty that they include a statement such as, "If you have a disability you may want to get in touch with
the Cegep's campus based disability service provider so that he or she can provide appropriate accommodations to
support your success" on all course outlines
De-stigmatize registration for disability related services by including these among other services offered in the
Cegeps (e.g., exam invigilation service, not intended exclusively for students with disabilities)
Students stated that their financial situations and their need to work at a paid job during the term posed obstacles.
• College personnel and MELS policy makers need to pay more attention to students' financial situations. There is an
urgent need for better financial assistance to students with disabilities to reduce the need to work during the
academic term
• Lobby for more government support to students with disabilities
• Get involved in committees to make improvements to government financial aid and compensation programs for
students (e.g., social assistance, funding related to students' Cegep studies)
• Publicize the availability of scholarships to students with disabilities (cf. AQEIPS (Association québécoise des
étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire), NEADS (National Educational Association of Disabled
Students))
Students with disabilities indicated that friends constitute an important facilitator.
• Help develop a system of peer mentoring for students with disabilities
Employment is an important post-Cegep outcome.
• Provide support and training to students and graduates with disabilities to help them find summer and permanent
jobs and internships
• Encourage prospective employers and adapted employment agencies (e.g., IAM CARES, SEMOs) to recruit on
campus
Computer and information technologies, universal instructional design, and knowledgeable faculty were seen as important
facilitators.
• Enhance access to computer technologies with needed adaptations for both Cegep and off-campus use
• Promote universal instructional design and the accessibility of eLearning to Cegep based organizations such as
APOP (Association des applications pédagogiques de l'ordinateur au postsecondaire), AQPC (Association
québécoise de pédagogie collégiale), profWeb (2006), Clic (Bulletin collégial des technologies de l’information et
des communications)
• Provide more information about universal instructional design at professional development activities for faculty,
disability service providers, and eLearning practitioners and specialists at the Cegep (e.g., PERFORMA, education
degree programs)
• Enhance professors’ knowledge by developing faculty teams which can promote accessibility to their peers
• Include consideration of the accessibility of eLearning in Cegep information and communication technology
initiatives and activities
• Sensitize rehabilitation centers and officials from various ministries about the importance of computers for offcampus use
• Lobby for better funding for Cegep based adaptive and accessible computer tehcnologies
13
Campus based disability service providers believe that they are not sufficiently knowledgeable and that providing services
to students with disabilities is not an important Cegep priority.
• Improve the status, recognition and relevance of disability service providers in the colleges
• Ensure more job stability of campus based disability service providers
• Provide additional opportunities for professional development for campus based disability service providers to
become more knowledgeable about adaptive computer technologies and about how to better meet the needs of the
increasing numbers of "emerging clientele" students with disabilities (e.g., students with medical and psychological
impairments), whether these students are registered with the service or not
Improving services and accommodations for students with disabilities was seen as an important issue by both students and
service providers.
• Given that personal situation factors posed significant obstacles to students with disabilities, campus based
disability service providers need to pay more attention to ameliorating problematic situations in this realm.
• Provide services to students with all types of impairments
• Provide supplementary transportation services to supplement adapted transport
• Ensure better availability of tutoring
• Improve the accessibility of college buildings and facilities
• Because a good schedule was seen as an important facilitator, offer pre-registration to students with disabilities to
permit them to obtain schedules that better fit with their impairments
• Because having too many courses was seen as an obstacle by many, inform students with disabilities that they are
permitted to register for fewer courses and still be considered full-time students and encourage career/technical
program coordinators to allow students to complete their studies in more semesters than specified in the program
description
• Provide better links between inexperienced campus based disability service providers and the Eastern and Western
Quebec "centre d'accueil" Cegeps
Improved funding for disability related services at Cegeps was seen as an important priority.
• The MELS needs to reconsider its funding formula for services to students with disabilities. Changes need to
acknowledge the “unrecognized” disabilities of the "emerging clientele," such as learning disabilities, certain
medical conditions and psychiatric disabilities
14
CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Using the following scale, indicate in what way each of the items below has affected your Cegep studies by
making them:
1
2
3
4
5
6
[ N/A ]
Much
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
Much
Not
Harder
Harder
Harder
Easier
Easier
Easier
Applicable
Put a number beside all items. If an item is not applicable to you, respond with N/A (not applicable).
Personal Situation
1. ______Financial situation
2. ______Paid employment
3. ______Family situation
4. ______Friends
5. ______Level of personal motivation
6. ______Study habits
7. ______Previous education experiences
8. ______Health
9. ______Impact of my disability
Cegep Environment
10. ______Level of difficulty of courses
11. ______Course load
12. ______Course schedule
13. ______Attitudes of professors
14. ______Attitudes of non-teaching staff (e.g., registration staff, financial aid staff)
15. ______Attitudes of students
16. ______Availability of computers on campus
17. ______Training on computer technologies on campus
18. ______Availability of course materials
19. ______Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities (e.g., clubs, sports, social activities)
20. ______Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs
21. ______Accessibility of building facilities (e.g., doorways, classrooms, labs)
22. ______Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
23. ______Availability of disability related services at the Cegep
Government and Community Supports and Services
24. ______Availability of financial aid
25. ______Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
26. ______Public transportation
27. ______Availability of computers off-campus
28. ______Training on computer technologies off-campus
29. ______Disability-related support services off-campus
30. ______Availability of adapted transport for student with disabilities
31. ______Coordination between disability-related support services (e.g., attendant care, adapted transport) and school
32. ______Availability of adaptations / career/technical aids at home (e.g., ramp, TDD)
15
Contact Information
For additional information and the full report, consult the Adaptech Research Network web site (http://www.adaptech.org)
or contact one of the principal investigators.
Catherine S. Fichten, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Shirley Jorgensen, M.B.A.
[email protected]
Alice Havel, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Maria Barile, M.S.W.
[email protected]
Adaptech Research Network
Dawson College
3040 Sherbrooke St. West
Montréal, Québec
Canada H3Z 1A4
Tel: (514) 931-8731
Fax: (514) 931-3567
www.adaptech.org
16
Sommaire - Étudiants ayant des incapacités au cégep : Réussite et avenir
Printemps 2006
Catherine Fichten, Ph.D., Shirley Jorgensen, M.B.A., Alice Havel, Ph.D., Maria Barile, M.S.W.
Avec la Collaboration de :
Marie-Eve Landry, M.Ps., Daniel Fiset, B.A., Jean-Charles Juhel, M.Ed., Sylvie Tétreault, Ph.D., Vittoria Ferraro, B.Sc., Caroline
Chwojka, B.A., Mai N. Nguyen, B.Sc., Iris Alapin, M.A., Rosie Arcuri, Gabrielle Huard, Rhonda Amsel, M.Sc.
Réseau de Recherche Adaptech – Collège Dawson, Montréal
Sommaire
Résumé
Dans la présente étude nous avons examiné les perceptions sur les obstacles et les facilitateurs au succès scolaire tels que
perçus par les diplômés de niveau collégial avec ou sans incapacité, des répondants locaux (conseillers pour les étudiants
ayant des incapacités) oeuvrant dans les cégeps, et les étudiants ayant divers types d’incapacités. Dans la mesure où les
perspectives des étudiants et des répondants sont valides et qu’elles reflètent différents aspects de l’expérience collégiale, il
est important d’obtenir des informations de ces deux sources. L’échantillonnage a également permis d’identifier les
similarités et les différences des expériences des diplômés sans incapacité et de ceux ayant des incapacités qui étaient ou
n’étaient pas inscrits pour recevoir des services spécialisés. Enfin, cette étude a aussi permis de connaître ce qui arrive aux
étudiants une fois qu’ils ont complété leurs études collégiales (ex. : se renseigner sur leur projets futurs, que ce soit un
emploi, la poursuite de leurs études ou d’autres projets) et de connaître quelle proportion d’étudiants ayant des incapacités
s’inscrivent pour recevoir des services spécialisés à leur cégep.
En vue de répondre à ces objectifs, nous avons interrogé (a) des répondants oeuvrant dans les cégeps; (b) des étudiants
ayant différents types d’incapacités qui étaient inscrits dans l’un des 48 cégeps publics au moment de l’étude et qui
recevaient des services spécialisés reliés à leurs incapacités; (c) trois groupes de diplômés récents (sans incapacité, avec
incapacités qui étaient inscrits pour recevoir des services spécialisés et avec incapacités, mais sans être inscrits à ces
services). Les diplômés provenaient de trois cégeps ayant une large population étudiante, soit : le Collège Dawson, le Cégep
du Vieux Montréal et le Cégep de Sainte-Foy. Les types d’incapacités étudiées comprenaient : les troubles
d’apprentissage/déficits de l’attention, les déficiences motrices, les déficiences auditives, les problèmes médicaux, les
troubles psychologiques, les limitations fonctionnelles aux mains/bras, la basse vision, la cécité, les troubles neurologiques,
la Surdité, les troubles du langage ou de la communication et les troubles envahissants du développement (TED), tels que
l’autisme ou le syndrome d’Asperger.
Les données obtenues ont permis de répondre aux questions suivantes : Dans quels programmes les étudiants ayant des
incapacités sont-ils inscrits au Cégep? Que font-ils un an après avoir été diplômés? Que perçoivent-ils comme étant des
facilitateurs ou des obstacles au plan personnel, au plan du Cégep et au plan de la communauté en lien avec leur succès
scolaire? Qu’est-ce que les étudiants, les cégeps et les organismes communautaires peuvent faire pour faciliter le succès
scolaire des étudiants ayant des incapacités?
Nous résumons dans cette partie du rapport, les résultats de la présente étude et indiquons des recommandations à des fins
de recherche et d’intervention. Des détails additionnels sont disponibles dans le rapport final, incluant les versions anglaise
et française de l’instrument de mesure développé par notre groupe de recherche, le Questionnaire sur votre expériences au
cégep (QEC) disponible en formats adaptés.
17
Objectifs
Afin de diminuer les obstacles, soutenir le succès scolaire des étudiants ayant des incapacités dans nos institutions postsecondaires et sensibiliser les administrateurs, il est impératif que les informations qui reflètent bien les diverses réalités de
la communauté collégiale soient transmises aux groupes et aux individus concernés afin qu’ils puissent : (a) aider à recruter,
retenir et augmenter le taux de diplômation des étudiants ayant des incapacités; (b) assurer que ces étudiants aient des
opportunités d’emploi et de poursuivre leur éducation une fois diplômés; et (c) déterminer les facteurs spécifiques qui
influencent leur succès scolaire qui ne sont pas identifiés dans les études portant sur les étudiants sans incapacité. L’objectif
principal de la présente recherche est de fournir ces informations qui, ultérieurement, aideront les étudiants ayant des
incapacités à réussir leurs études collégiales et devenir concurrentiels pour les places dans les universités ainsi que sur le
marché du travail.
Pour réaliser cet objectif, nous avons (1) mené une étude systématique sur la perception des répondants locaux (conseillers
pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités) et des étudiants en cours de formation ayant divers types d’incapacités, des
facilitateurs et des obstacles à la poursuite et à la réussite de leurs études collégiales et leur succès dans le système scolaire;
2) exploré les perceptions post-cégep des facilitateurs et des obstacles de récents diplômés avec et sans incapacité des
programmes d’études pré-universitaires et techniques/professionnels. Puisque notre population de diplômés provient des
trois cégeps comptant le plus grand nombre d’étudiants ayant des incapacités (c’est-à-dire le Collège Dawson, le Cégep du
Vieux Montréal et le Cégep de Sainte-Foy, nommés les « centres d’accueil »), nous avons été en mesure de comparer les
réponses des diplômés n’ayant pas d’incapacité, des diplômés ayant des incapacités inscrits pour recevoir des services
spécialisés, ainsi que celles des diplômés ayant des incapacités non-inscrits pour obtenir de tels services.
Les objectifs spécifiques étaient les suivants
• Examiner ce qui rend plus facile (les facilitateurs) ou à l’inverse, plus difficile (les obstacles) la réussite scolaire des
étudiants ayant des incapacités au cégep
• Explorer les similarités et les différences entre les diplômés sans incapacité et ceux ayant des incapacités qui sont
inscrits ou non aux services spécialisés de leur cégep
• Décrire ce qui arrive aux étudiants après l’obtention de leur diplôme
• Fournir un questionnaire qui permet d’évaluer les obstacles et les facilitateurs académiques des étudiants pour des
fins d’évaluation institutionnelle
• Informer les administrateurs pour le développement de politiques et de pratiques appropriées
Méthodologie
Cette étude a été menée en trois phases. Les taux de réponses à chaque phase sont de 83% (Phase 1), 32% (Phase 2) et 28%
(Phase 3).
•
•
•
Phase 1 - 57 répondants ont complété les instruments de mesure (les questions démographiques, les questions
qualitatives sur les éléments qui rendent les études « plus faciles », « plus difficiles » et les changements suggérés,
et le Questionnaire sur votre expérience au cégep) lors d’un entretien téléphonique au cours de la session
d’automne 2004
Phase 2 - 300 étudiants inscrits aux services spécialisés de leur cégep à la session d’hiver 2005 ont complété des
questionnaires similaires. Parmi ceux-ci, 159 ont complété les instruments à deux reprises à 4 semaines d’intervalle
afin de déterminer la fidélité du questionnaire (test-retest)
Phase 3 - 1486 diplômés récents, avec et sans incapacité, provenant de deux cégeps francophones et d’un cégep
anglophone, ont complété les mêmes questionnaires ainsi qu’une section supplémentaire, le Questionnaire PostCollégial. Parmi ces diplômés, 182 ont indiqué qu’ils avaient une incapacité et 1304 ont indiqué n’en présenter
aucune.
18
Résultats
Caractéristiques de l’échantillon et représentation des étudiants et des diplômés ayant des incapacités dans les
cégeps. Dans le même sens que la tendance générale au niveau de l’éducation post-secondaire, les étudiants actuels ayant
des incapacités et les trois groupes de diplômés étaient plus susceptibles d’être des femmes que des hommes. Les diplômés
ayant des incapacités étaient en moyenne plus âgés de 6 mois que leurs collègues sans incapacité, ce qui abonde dans le
même sens que les résultats d’une étude antérieure qui indiquait que les étudiants ayant des incapacités prenaient environ
une session de plus que leurs pairs sans incapacité pour terminer leurs études collégiales. La majorité des étudiants ayant des
incapacités et des trois groupes de diplômés (au total, plus de 90%), étaient inscrits dans des programmes réguliers visant
l’obtention d’un diplôme d’études collégiales (DEC) : environ 50% provenaient d’un programme d’études pré-universitaires
et 50% d’un programme technique/professionnel.
Bien qu’une grande variation existe d’un cégep à l’autre, les répondants ont mentionné avoir en moyenne sept années
d’expérience dans leur emploi et consacré en moyenne une journée (20%) par semaine pour les services aux étudiants ayant
des incapacités. Plus de la moitié de ces professionnels ont indiqué avoir de l’expérience dans l’octroi de services auprès
d’étudiants ayant des troubles d’apprentissage, des déficiences motrices et des déficiences auditives alors que moins de la
moitié d’entre eux avaient de l’expérience dans la distribution de services spécialisés aux étudiants présentant des troubles
d’ordre médical et/ou psychologique.
La nature des incapacités des étudiants inscrits pour recevoir des services spécialisés dans leur Cégep a changé au courant
des dernières années. Les incapacités les plus souvent rapportées par les étudiants et diplômés étaient : des troubles
d’apprentissage/d’attention, des déficiences motrices, des déficiences auditives, des problèmes médicaux et des troubles
psychologiques. De plus, il est à noter que près de 25% de ceux qui sont inscrits aux services spécialisés présentaient plus
d’une incapacité.
Les déficiences d’une grande partie des étudiants ayant des incapacités ne correspondent plus à la division tripartite
originale du Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport (MELS) du Québec, qui se divise par déficiences visuelles, par
déficiences auditives et par une catégorie générale « autres ». En effet, le type d’incapacités le plus rapporté parmi les
étudiants inscrits pour recevoir des services spécialisés au sein de leur cégep sont les troubles d’apprentissage et ces derniers
ne sont pas une catégorie reconnue et financée par le modèle traditionnel du MELS. D’autres incapacités fréquemment
rapportées par les étudiants incluent les troubles psychologiques et psychiatriques, qui ne sont également pas reconnus ou
financés par le MELS et pour lesquels les répondants estiment avoir peu de connaissances.
Nous avons trouvé que la proportion d’étudiants inscrits aux services spécialisés de leur établissement scolaire avait
légèrement augmenté depuis 1999. Toutefois, cette augmentation paraît minime et ne semble pas suivre l’augmentation
correspondante dans les autres provinces. Le fait le plus bouleversant est que la proportion continue à représenter moins de
1% de tout l’effectif étudiant. De la même façon, le pourcentage d’étudiants inscrits pour recevoir des services spécialisés et
pour lesquels les cégeps reçoivent du financement du MELS a augmenté par rapport à celui observé en 1999, mais de façon
peu considérable. En effet, à l’heure actuelle, les cégeps ne reçoivent des fonds que pour soutenir le tiers des étudiants
présentement inscrits pour recevoir des services spécialisés. Cette situation a contribué à de sérieux problèmes financiers et
des difficultés en termes de distribution des services. Pour pallier ces difficultés, les cégeps gèrent la situation par divers
moyens. À titre d’exemple, certains cégeps ont une liste d’attente.
Notre étude sur les diplômés suggère que la proportion actuelle d’étudiants rapportant des incapacités se situe autour de
10%. Parmi eux, la majorité ne s’inscrit pas pour recevoir des services spécialisés. Notons par ailleurs que la majorité de ces
derniers présentent des incapacités d’ordre médical, psychologique ou encore des incapacités visuelles et des troubles
d’apprentissage.
Étudiants inscrits versus non-inscrits aux services spécialisés. Comme c’est le cas dans les autres collèges et universités en
Amérique du Nord, nos résultats suggèrent que la majorité des étudiants rapportant des incapacités dans les cégeps (à peu
près 90% dans nos échantillons) ne s’inscrivent pas pour obtenir des services spécialisés ou pour recevoir des adaptations
particulières. Par conséquent, l’évaluation du nombre d’étudiants ayant des incapacités à partir des inscriptions aux services
spécialisés représente une sous-estimation de la proportion réelle. Ceci soulève également la question à savoir s’il y a en
effet une proportion très petite d’étudiants ayant des incapacités dans le système collégial ou encore s’ils sont inscrits dans
les cégeps, mais pour des diverses raisons, ne s’inscrivent pas aux services spécialisés.
19
Néanmoins, puisque la majorité des étudiants ayant des incapacités ne sont pas inscrits pour recevoir de services spécialisés,
des adaptations sont rarement fournies par le personnel ou le corps enseignant. Le besoin d’appliquer le modèle de
l’accessibilité universelle en pédagogie, qui implique des stratégies éducationnelles accessibles à tous les étudiants, incluant
ceux ayant des incapacités, apparaît donc important.
Problèmes de financement. Des estimations suggèrent qu’il y a approximativement 15 000 étudiants ayant des incapacités
actuellement inscrits dans les cégeps (c’est-à-dire à peu près 10% des cégépiens) bien que seulement 10% sont inscrits aux
services spécialisés. Pour leur part, les cégeps ne reçoivent du financement que pour un tiers des étudiants inscrits à ces
services. Ces données indiquent donc des problèmes sérieux de financement concernant la distribution de services
spécialisés pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités.
« La clientèle émergente ». Les rapports des répondants et des gestionnaires des services spécialisés des trois cégeps
« centres d’accueil » montrent des tendances quant aux types d’incapacités présentées par les étudiants qu’ils desservent.
Les cégeps reçoivent peu ou pas de financement du MELS pour plusieurs d’entre elles. La tendance à long terme montre
que la « clientèle émergente » d’étudiants présentant des troubles d’apprentissage et des problèmes médicaux et
psychologiques augmente substantiellement, ce qui soulève de nouvelles préoccupations financières. De même, cette
clientèle amène des difficultés pour les répondants qui se sentent peu expérimentés et peu aptes à leur donner les services
adéquats.
Bien que le MELS ait déjà mis en vigueur un ensemble de changements dans les cégeps pour assurer que les étudiants
présentant des troubles d’apprentissage reçoivent davantage d’attention, des augmentations budgétaires très modestes ont
été enregistrées pour faire face à cette « clientèle émergente ».
Utilisation du Questionnaire sur votre expérience au cégep (QEC) pour faciliter la réussite des étudiants. Nous avons
développé 32 items pour le Questionnaire sur votre expérience au cégep et établi des coefficients de validité et de fidélité
acceptables. Le questionnaire est disponible en anglais et en français, en format régulier, en gros caractères et en version
digitale (format Word) dans l’Appendice du rapport intégral. Malgré le fait qu’il n’y a pas de « normes », les moyennes
obtenues pour chaque item sont présentées dans le rapport final en fonction des étudiants ayant des incapacités en général et
en fonction des incapacités spécifiques.
Quels facteurs facilitent les études au cégep? Lesquels présentent des obstacles? Que faudrait-il changer? De manière
générale, tous les participants ont mentionné davantage de facteurs qui ont facilité leurs études que de facteurs qui les ont
rendu plus difficiles. Cette tendance était surtout observable lorsqu’il s’agissait de facteurs reliés à l’environnement du
cégep et qui étaient généralement perçus comme importants et facilitants à la fois. Les situations personnelles des étudiants
et les services de la communauté et du gouvernement étaient perçus comme moins importants et facilitants. De plus, les
étudiants qui rapportaient plusieurs incapacités rencontraient plus d’obstacles.
Les répondants (conseillers pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités) ont identifié plusieurs facteurs reliés à leur fonction
qu’ils considéraient comme étant importants pour la réussite des étudiants. Ceux-ci incluent : une bonne collaboration entre
les professeurs et les répondants; des services de diagnostique à l’extérieur du cégep tels que des évaluations de troubles
d’apprentissage; la capacité des étudiants à formuler leurs besoins; des attitudes favorables de l’administration du cégep face
aux services spécialisés; l’identification des besoins des étudiants par les répondants, la reconnaissance de la part des
étudiants de l’impact de leurs incapacités; le budget alloué aux services spécialisés de leur cégep; l’ouverture des étudiants à
utiliser les services; les choix de carrière des étudiants et le niveau de connaissances des professeurs concernant les services
spécialisés et les types d’adaptations nécessaires.
La majorité des participants avec et sans incapacité ont rapporté des facilitateurs et des obstacles similaires. Toutefois , les
diplômés ayant des incapacités qui n’étaient pas inscrits pour recevoir de services spécialisés ont obtenu des scores
significativement moins élevés à l’échelle globale ainsi qu’aux items reliés à l’environnement du cégep que les diplômés
sans incapacité et les diplômés qui étaient inscrits aux services spécialisés. D’une part, de bons professeurs, les tuteurs, les
centres d’apprentissage (aide pour l’étude, l’écriture, la prise d’examens et le tutorat) et la disponibilité des ordinateurs sur
le campus et à l’extérieur étaient considérés comme des facilitateurs importants par les étudiants et les trois groupes de
diplômés. Les amis, les horaires de cours, la facilité et l’attrait des cours et des programmes, une bonne situation financière,
une grande motivation et des habiletés pour les études sont aussi considérés comme des facilitateurs. D’autre part, de
« mauvais enseignants », des cours et des horaires difficiles, l’obligation d’avoir un emploi, des problèmes de transport
public, une mauvaise situation financière, un manque d’accès aux ordinateurs du cégep, une trop grande charge de cours, le
20
manque d’habiletés pour les études, la difficulté et le manque d’intérêt pour les programmes, une faible motivation et le
manque de temps étaient généralement perçus comme des obstacles.
Les résultats sur la disponibilité et l’accessibilité des ordinateurs au cégep et hors-campus, qui sont perçus comme des
facilitateurs, correspondent aux résultats d’autres études appuyant l’idée que les ordinateurs facilitaient grandement les
études des étudiants ayant des incapacités. De plus, une recherche récente rapporte que l’utilisation de l’ordinateur au travail
est associée à un salaire plus élevé pour les employés avec et sans incapacité. Cependant, une autre étude récente indique
que malgré l’utilisation importante du cyber-apprentissage au niveau de l’éducation post-secondaire au Canada, peu
d’informations sont disponibles sur les besoins et les préoccupations des étudiants ayant des incapacités par rapport au
cyber-apprentissage. Il est clair que plus d’études sont nécessaires.
Même si le niveau de motivation personnelle était perçu comme un facilitateur important pour la plupart des étudiants, il
était spécialement facilitant pour les étudiants ayant des troubles d’apprentissage. Cette conclusion appuie d’autres
recherches qui ont démontré que la motivation personnelle était identifiée comme un des plus importants facilitateurs, suivis
de la famille et des amis, pour les étudiants ayant des troubles d’apprentissage.
Les diplômés sans incapacité et les diplômés avec incapacités inscrits et non-inscrits aux services spécialisés. Les résultats
indiquent qu’en général, les diplômés ayant des incapacités ont obtenu des scores significativement inférieurs à ceux des
diplômés sans incapacité, particulièrement pour les items reliés à la situation personnelle et pour l’index de difficulté global
(IDF). Pour les individus ayant des incapacités, les préoccupations particulières incluent : leur mauvais état de santé et
l’impact de leur incapacité.
Les changements suggérés par les étudiants ayant des incapacités de même que les diplômés avec ou sans incapacité étaient
très semblables et visaient généralement l’environnement du cégep. Les facteurs les plus importants pour tous les groupes
étaient l’amélioration des horaires de cours, du fonctionnement de leur cégep, des programmes et cours en général, de
meilleurs professeurs, une plus grande disponibilité d’ordinateurs et de technologies de l’information, de soutien et d’aide
ainsi que des améliorations à l’environnement physique du cégep. Les changements suggérés par les répondants visaient
surtout l’amélioration de l’accessibilité aux locaux et aux installations de même que certains aspects des services qu’ils
offrent. Promouvoir la collaboration et la communication entre les membres du personnel, les professeurs et les étudiants,
accroître le financement de leurs services et plus de disponibilité de service de tutorat comptent parmi les changements les
plus rapportés par les répondants.
Les données suggèrent aussi qu’il peut être important pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités de s’inscrire aux services
spécialisés. Par exemple, les diplômés ayant des incapacités inscrits aux services spécialisés ont perçu que certains aspects
de l’environnement du cégep, tels que la disponibilité des ordinateurs et du matériel de cours, étaient plus facilitants. Ils ont
aussi des scores plus élevés pour l’index de difficulté global (IDF) que ceux non-inscrits. En fait, les diplômés ayant des
incapacités non-inscrits détenaient les scores les plus bas, spécialement pour les items reliés à l’environnement du cégep.
Les scores de l’index de difficulté global (IDF) pour les diplômés ayant des incapacités et qui sont inscrits étaient similaires
aux scores des diplômés sans incapacité. Par contre, en excluant les items du questionnaire reliés aux incapacités, les
diplômés inscrits avaient des scores à l’IDF, en moyenne, supérieurs à ceux des diplômés sans incapacité. Ceci ne
s’appliquait pas aux diplômés non-inscrits.
En concordance avec d’autres études, les individus ayant des incapacités qui étaient inscrits aux services spécialisés de leur
cégep ont mentionné de façon marquée que les adaptations comptaient parmi les plus importants facilitateurs, avec la
sensibilisation et la diffusion de l’information au corps enseignant sur les incapacités. Dans la présente étude, les
adaptations spécifiques perçues comme utiles étaient : avoir un preneur de note ou un interprète en classe, du temps
supplémentaire pour les examens et travaux, des installations accessibles ainsi que les politiques du MELS et des cégeps
qui permettent aux étudiants ayant des incapacités de réduire leur charge de cours tout en étant considérés comme des
« étudiants à temps plein ».
D’autres études ont indiqué que le temps supplémentaire était important chez les étudiants ayant des troubles
d’apprentissage et augmentait aussi leurs résultats scolaires. Ceci a été démontré dans le cas de tâches de compréhension de
textes et d’algèbre, dans lesquelles les étudiants ayant des troubles d’apprentissage, qui avaient initialement obtenu des
résultats plus faibles que leurs pairs sans incapacité sous des conditions de temps régulier, ont amélioré leurs résultats. De
plus, ils ne se distinguaient pas de leurs pairs sans incapacité quand les deux groupes bénéficiaient d’une période de temps
prolongée.
21
Comparaison entre les étudiants ayant des incapacités et les répondants. Dans la plupart des cas, les étudiants et les
répondants s’entendaient sur les obstacles et les facilitateurs les plus importants. Les exceptions démontrent que même si les
étudiants ont identifié différents facteurs sous la catégorie « situation personnelle » comme étant des facilitateurs (tels que
les amis, leur horaire, l’accessibilité des ordinateurs hors-campus, les adaptations physiques à la maison et leur situation
financière), les répondants ne partageaient pas leurs perceptions. De plus, les étudiants ont identifié des obstacles qui ne sont
pas mentionnés par les répondants : une trop grande charge de cours, des cours trop difficiles, des mauvais horaires,
l’impact de leur incapacité, une situation financière problématique et l’obligation de travailler pendant les études.
De leur côté, les répondants ont indiqué qu’un répondant bien informé, le service de pré-inscription aux cours pour les
étudiants ayant des incapacités avant les autres étudiants, l’attitude et l’ouverture des professeurs à adapter leurs cours selon
les besoins des étudiants, un bon service de counseling et d’aide pédagogique étaient d’importants facilitateurs, de même
qu’une bonne revendication personnelle de l’étudiant – facteurs généralement non mentionnés par les étudiants ayant des
incapacités. D’un autre côté, même si les étudiants n’ont pas identifié ces préoccupations, les répondants étaient insatisfaits
à l’égard de divers aspects reliés aux services spécialisés et aux adaptations qu’ils offrent, le manque d’information et de
sensibilisation à l’égard des incapacités au cégep, leur manque de connaissances sur les incapacités et les adaptations et la
faible revendication personnelle des étudiants. En effet, la revendication personnelle (le fait de demander de l’aide et/ou
d’affirmer ses besoins) a longtemps été perçue comme étant un facteur primordial pour le succès scolaire par les répondants.
De plus, l’importance accrue du rôle du corps enseignant pour le succès scolaire des étudiants ayant des incapacités a aussi
été soulevée dans plusieurs publications récentes.
Que se passe-t-il après l’obtention du diplôme? Nos conclusions font ressortir très peu de différences entre les
pourcentages des diplômés avec ou sans incapacité qui ont continué leurs études post-collégiales ou dans les pourcentages
de ceux qui travaillaient à temps plein ou à temps partiel. Il n’y avait pas de différence significative entre les taux d’emploi
chez les diplômés avec ou sans incapacité.
Le taux d’emploi chez les diplômés dans les programmes techniques était très élevé - plus de 95% pour les diplômés avec
ou sans incapacité. Les résultats de Statistiques Canada pour les individus ayant ou non des incapacités en 2001 n’indiquent
qu’une légère différence dans les taux d’emploi chez les adultes avec ou sans incapacité. Par contre, il est important de noter
que les statistiques générales pour le Canada notent une différence importante entre la proportion des individus avec et sans
incapacité qui ne sont pas sur le marché du travail. Ceci ne s’appliquait pas aux diplômés du cégep puisque les proportions
des diplômés avec et sans incapacité qui étudiaient ou qui n’étaient pas disponibles sur le marché du travail pour diverses
raisons étaient très similaires.
De plus, il n’y avait pas de différence significative entre les diplômés avec ou sans incapacité en fonction du fait que leur
emploi était relié ou non à leur domaine d’étude. Ces données sont consistantes à celles des diplômés universitaires
mentionnées dans une importante étude américaine. En effet, la seule différence que nous avons trouvée entre les diplômés
avec ou sans incapacité était le fait que les diplômés avec incapacités et qui étaient inscrits dans des programmes techniques
étaient moins susceptibles que leurs collègues sans incapacité d’obtenir un emploi relié « étroitement » à leur domaine
d’étude.
Conclusions
De manière générale, en analysant la situation des étudiants ayant des incapacités dans les cégeps, les résultats de cette étude
indiquent plus d’éléments positifs que négatifs. La proportion des étudiants avec des incapacités a augmenté au cours des cinq
dernières années. Les participants ont reporté substantiellement plus de facilitateurs que d’obstacles au plan de la réussite
scolaire, particulièrement des facilitateurs associés à l’environnement du cégep. Par ailleurs, les diplômés avec ou sans
incapacité ont poursuivi leurs études et sont entrés sur le marché du travail avec succès dans des proportions équivalentes.
Par contre, trois préoccupations principales doivent être notées. Premièrement, la croissance durant les cinq dernières années
du nombre d’étudiants ayant des incapacités qui s’inscrivent aux services spécialisés dans leur cégep est limitée et demeure
en dessous de 1% du corps étudiant comparativement à 6% dans le reste du Canada, donnée que nous avons trouvée il y a
cinq ans. Deuxièmement, les résultats rapportent qu’approximativement 9 diplômés ayant des incapacités sur 10 ne
s’inscrivent pas aux services spécialisés. En outre, ces diplômés non-inscrits ont vécu plus d’obstacles, en particulier reliés à
l’environnement du cégep, que les diplômés sans incapacité ou les diplômés ayant des incapacités inscrits. Troisièmement,
les résultats soulignent de sérieux problèmes de financement pour les services spécialisés, ce qui demande une attention
particulière.
22
Recommandations
Recommandations pour fins de recherche.
Évaluer les obstacles et les facilitateurs des étudiants ayant diverses incapacités avant et après l’application des
changements aux politiques et pratiques du cégep.
•
Le Questionnaire sur votre expérience au cégep (QEC) peut être utilisé pour évaluer les obstacles et les
facilitateurs chez les étudiants avec ou sans incapacité et peut aussi être inclus dans les sondages de recherche
institutionnelle ciblant les étudiants et diplômés
Inclure systémiquement les questions relatives au statut et à la nature des incapacités des étudiants dans les études.
• Inclure les questions relatives aux incapacités dans tous les sondages des cégeps et s’assurer qu’ils soient
disponibles en divers formats
• Inclure les questions relatives aux incapacités dans les sondages du SRAM (Service régional d’admission du
Montréal métropolitain) et du SRAQ (Service régional d’admission au collégial de Québec)
Effectuer une étude sur l’accessibilité du cyber-apprentissage et sur les technologies de l’information.
• Dépendamment des circonstances, les ordinateurs et les technologies de l’information étaient perçus comme étant
soit des obstacles importants, soit des facilitateurs importants. Il est donc indispensable d’effectuer des recherches
sur l’accessibilité du cyber-apprentissage et sur les besoins des technologies de l’information dans les cégeps
Évaluer l’impact du financement des services spécialisés du cégep.
• Les résultats scolaires provenant des étudiants qui reçoivent du financement devraient être comparés à ceux des
étudiants inscrits mais pour qui le financement n’est pas disponible (ex. : ceux ayant des incapacités « reconnues »
versus « non-reconnues »). La moyenne générale obtenue au secondaire peut être utilisée comme une covariante ou
un repère dans l’appariement des deux groupes d’étudiants
Rechercher plus d’informations sur les étudiants ayant des incapacités qui ne s’inscrivent pas aux services spécialisés de
leur cégep.
• Les individus ayant des incapacités non-inscrits aux services spécialisés ont rencontré plus d’obstacles que les
individus ayant des incapacités inscrits aux services et les individus sans incapacité.
• Pour assurer l’accès aux services appropriés aux étudiants avec des incapacités non-inscrits, il est essentiel
d’obtenir plus d’informations sur ce groupe : Pourquoi ne se sont-ils pas inscrits? Quels sont leurs besoins et
préoccupations? Comment leurs besoins scolaires peuvent-ils être comblés sans être inscrits aux services
spécialisés? Auraient-ils eu de meilleurs résultats académiques s’ils s’étaient inscrits?
• Il s’avère essentiel de comparer les résultats scolaires des étudiants ayant des incapacités inscrits avec ceux des
étudiants non-inscrits. Encore ici, la moyenne générale obtenue au secondaire peut être la covariante ou un repère
dans l’appariement des deux groupes d’étudiants
Évaluer l’efficacité de chaque type de services offerts au cégep pour les différentes incapacités.
• Les adaptations reliées aux incapacités se trouvaient parmi les facilitateurs les plus importants pour les individus
ayant des incapacités
Effectuer des études prospectives et rétrospectives afin d’analyser le cheminement des diplômés.
• Qu’arrive-il aux diplômés ayant des incapacités?
• Étant donné qu’une grande proportion des diplômés poursuit leurs études après le cégep, quel est le cheminement
universitaire des diplômés ayant des incapacités comparativement à ceux sans incapacité?
• Quel est le cheminement de carrière à long terme des personnes diplômées des programmes
techniques/professionnels, ainsi que leurs salaires?
23
Recommandations pour la pratique. Ces recommandations visent essentiellement le personnel du MELS et des cégeps,
incluant les répondants (conseillers pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités) oeuvrant dans les cégeps, le corps enseignant,
les gestionnaires des services reliés aux incapacités, le personnel responsable des services étudiants, l’aide financière, les
technologies informatiques et de l’information, le développement professionnel, etc.
Il existe un besoin pour la pratique basée sur les données probantes dans l’approvisionnement du financement des services
et adaptations reliés aux incapacités.
• Informer les répondants travaillant sur le campus des résultats de recherches pertinentes afin de promouvoir la
pratique basée sur des données probantes
• Utiliser le QEC pour l’évaluation de programmes et de l’évaluation du cheminement scolaire des étudiants ayant
des incapacités
• Les répondants peuvent administrer régulièrement le QEC à leur clientèle afin d’obtenir des informations sur la
réalité des étudiants. Ce questionnaire peut permettre d’améliorer les services en incorporant les idées des
étudiants, en tenant compte des changements dans le temps, en évaluant l’impact des améliorations et en offrant de
la documentation afin de faciliter les prises de décision par les administrateurs des cégeps et du MELS
Il y a moins d’étudiants ayant des incapacités inscrits dans les cégeps au Québec comparativement aux autres provinces et
relativement moins d’étudiants sont inscrits aux services spécialisés de leur cégep. De plus, les adaptations appropriées et la
diffusion d’information concernant les incapacités dans la communauté collégiale étaient perçues comme étant
particulièrement facilitantes. Ce dernier point suggère qu’il existe un besoin pour une plus grande visibilité des services et
des adaptations reliés aux incapacités dans des contextes variés.
• Une meilleure visibilité des services spécialisés dans les cégeps pour les nouveaux arrivants, en acheminant, par
exemple, des dépliants à tous les étudiants lorsqu’ils sont admis au cégep
• Élaborer un guide collégial qui fournit l’information concernant la disponibilité de diverses adaptations, de
ressources et d’installations, en incluant aussi de l’information concernant le niveau de réussite des étudiants ayant
utilisé ces services, et rendre ce guide accessible à tous les étudiants, non seulement à ceux ayant des incapacités
• Créer une vidéo et un dépliant promotionnels offrant de l’information sur les services disponibles pour les
étudiants ayant des incapacités à travers les cégeps. Inclure les services qui pourraient aider les étudiants ayant des
troubles d’apprentissage, des troubles psychologiques/psychiatriques et des problèmes médicaux.
• Publiciser les réussites des étudiants ayant des incapacités ainsi que les services spécialisés dans divers
contextes (ex. : à l’intérieur du cégep, dans les écoles secondaires, dans les centres de réadaptation, aux groupes
communautaires, à l’Ordre des Conseillers et Conseilleurs d’orientation et à l’Ordre des Psychoéducateurs et
Psychoéducatrices du Québec, à Emploi-Québec, aux centres d’emploi adaptés tel que le SEMO, etc.
• Inclure l’information sur la disponibilité des adaptations reliées aux incapacités à travers les cégeps pendant les
journées Portes ouvertes et à la visite dans les écoles secondaires
• Les professionnels et les professeurs des écoles secondaires doivent motiver les étudiants ayant des incapacités à
poursuivre leurs études au cégep
• Inclure l’information reliée aux incapacités dans les publications tels que le « Guide aux études » et le « Guide
général d’admission » du SRAM (Service régional d’admission du Montréal métropolitain) et du SRAQ (Service
régional d’admission au collégial de Québec)
• Mettre en œuvre et diffuser des outils promotionnels qui sensibiliseront et informeront le personnel du cégep, avec
une emphase particulière pour le corps enseignant, sur les incapacités en général et les adaptations appropriées
• Promouvoir les avantages de s’inscrire aux services spécialisés via le bulletin du cégep, les sites web et autres
publications
• Suggérer aux membres du corps enseignant d’inclure dans tous leurs plans de cours, des déclarations telles que :
« Si vous avez des incapacités, vous pouvez contacter les services spécialisés du cégep afin que le répondant puisse
vous offrir les adaptations nécessaires pour faciliter vos études »
• Dé-stigmatiser l’inscription aux services spécialisés en les incluant parmi les autres services offerts dans les cégeps
(ex. : la supervision durant les examens, qui n’est pas désignée exclusivement pour les étudiants ayant des
incapacités)
24
Les étudiants rapportent que leur situation financière et la nécessité d’avoir un travail rémunéré durant leurs études leur
posaient des obstacles.
• Le personnel des cégeps et les gestionnaires du MELS doivent accorder plus d’attention à la situation financière
des étudiants. Il existe un besoin urgent pour une meilleure assistance financière désignée aux étudiants ayant des
incapacités afin de pouvoir réduire leurs heures de travail durant les sessions scolaires
• Faire pression pour plus de soutien gouvernemental envers les étudiants ayant des incapacités
• Participer aux comités afin d’améliorer l’aide financière gouvernementale et aux programmes de compensation
pour les étudiants (ex. : assistance sociale, financement relié aux études collégiales des étudiants)
• Publiciser la disponibilité de bourses aux étudiants avec des incapacités (ex. : AQEIPS (Association québécoise
des étudiants ayant des incapacités au post-secondaire), NEADS (Association nationale des étudiant(e)s
handicapé(e)s au niveau postsecondaire))
Les amis représentent un facilitateur important pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités.
• Aider à développer un programme de mentor par les pairs pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités
L’emploi est un aboutissement post-collégial important.
• Fournir le soutien et la formation nécessaire aux étudiants et diplômés afin de les aider à obtenir un emploi d’été,
un emploi permanent ou des stages
• Encourager les employeurs potentiels et les agences d’emploi (ex. : AIM CROIT, SEMO) à recruter sur les campus
Les ordinateurs et les technologies de l’information, l’accessibilité universelle en pédagogie et un corps enseignant instruit
étaient perçus comme étant des facilitateurs importants.
• Optimiser l’accès aux technologies de l’information avec des adaptations supplémentaires pour leur utilisation
dans les cégeps et hors-campus
• Promouvoir l’accessibilité universelle en pédagogie et l’accessibilité du cyber-apprentissage aux organismes
collégiaux tels que l’APOP (Association des applications pédagogiques de l’ordinateur au postsecondaire), AQPC
(Association québécoise de pédagogie collégiale), profWeb (2006) et Clic (Bulletin collégial des technologies de
l’information et des communications)
• Fournir plus d’information à propos de l’accessibilité universelle en pédagogie durant les séminaires
professionnels pour les membres du corps enseignant, les répondants, les praticiens et les spécialistes du cyberapprentissage dans les cégeps (ex. : PERFORMA)
• Approfondir les connaissances des professeurs en développant des équipes parmi les membres du corps enseignant
pour discuter des problématiques reliées à l’accessibilité du cyber-apprentissage
• Considérer l’accessibilité du cyber-apprentissage dans les activités et les initiatives de technologies de
l’information et de la communication au cégep
• Sensibiliser les centres de réadaptation et les fonctionnaires provenant de divers ministères par rapport à
l’importance de l’accès des ordinateurs hors-campus
• Faire pression pour un meilleur financement pour les technologies de l’information adaptées dans les cégeps
Les répondants oeuvrant dans les cégeps croient qu’ils n’ont pas suffisamment de connaissances et que fournir des services
aux étudiants ayant des incapacités n’est pas une priorité pour leur établissement.
• Améliorer le statut et la reconnaissance des répondants dans les cégeps
• Assurer une meilleure stabilité d’emploi aux répondants et reconnaître la pertinence de leur travail
• Offrir plus d’opportunités pour un développement professionnel afin que les répondants travaillant sur le campus
puissent être mieux informés par rapport aux technologies de l’information adaptées et par rapport à la rencontre
des besoins d’un nombre croissant de cette « clientèle émergente » (ex. : les étudiants ayant des problèmes
médicaux ou des problèmes psychologiques), peu importe si les étudiants sont inscrits ou non à leurs services
25
L’amélioration des services et des adaptations pour les étudiants avec des incapacités était perçue comme étant une
problématique importante autant pour les étudiants que pour les répondants.
• Les facteurs reliés à la situation personnelle amenant des obstacles significatifs pour les étudiants ayant des
incapacités, les répondants doivent porter plus d’attention vers l’amélioration de cet aspect
• Fournir des services aux étudiants ayant tous les types d’incapacités
• Fournir des services de transport supplémentaires en plus du transport adapté
• Assurer une plus grande disponibilité du tutorat
• Améliorer l’accessibilité des immeubles et des installations du cégep
• Offrir un service de pré-inscription aux étudiants ayant des incapacités afin de leur permettre d’obtenir des horaires
qui conviennent mieux à leurs besoins
• Informer les étudiants ayant des incapacités qu’ils ont la permission d’avoir un horaire moins chargé tout en étant
considérés comme des étudiants à temps plein et encourager les coordinateurs des programmes
techniques/professionnels de permettre aux étudiants de compléter leurs études en davantage de sessions que le
nombre prescrit dans la description du programme
• Créer des liens plus étroits entre les répondants inexpérimentés et les cégeps « centres d’accueils » de l’est et
l’ouest du Québec
Un financement amélioré pour les services reliés aux incapacités dans les cégeps était perçu comme une priorité importante.
• MELS doit reconsidérer sa formule de financement pour les services aux étudiants ayant des incapacités. Il est
primordial de reconnaître les incapacités « non-reconnues » de la « clientèle émergente », tels que les troubles
d’apprentissage, certains problèmes médicaux et troubles psychiatriques
26
QUESTIONNAIRE SUR VOTRE EXPÉRIENCE AU CÉGEP
À l’aide de l’échelle suivante, indiquez comment chaque item a influencé vos études au Cégep en les rendant :
1
Plus
difficile
2
Modérément
plus difficile
3
Légèrement
plus difficile
4
Légèrement
plus facile
5
Modérément
plus facile
6
[ N/A ]
Non
Applicable
Plus facile
Inscrivez le chiffre correspondant pour chaque item. Si un élément ne s’applique pas à votre situation, répondez par N/A (non
applicable).
Situation personnelle
1. ______Situation financière
2. ______Travail rémunéré
3. ______Situation familiale
4. ______Ami(es)
5. ______Degré de motivation personnelle
6. ______Gestion du travail scolaire (méthode, organisation)
7. ______Expériences scolaires antérieures
8. ______État de santé
9. ______Impact de mon incapacité
Environnement du Cégep
10. ______Degré de difficulté des cours
11. ______Charge reliée au nombre de cours
12. ______Horaire des cours
13. ______Attitude des professeurs
14. ______Attitude du personnel non enseignant (ex. : personnel du registrariat /de l’aide financière)
15. ______Attitude des étudiants
16. ______Disponibilité des ordinateurs dans le Cégep
17. ______Formation sur les technologies informatiques au Cégep
18. ______Disponibilité du matériel de cours
19. ______Opportunité de participer aux activités parascolaires au Cégep (ex. : clubs, sports, activités sociales)
20. ______Ouverture des professeurs à adapter les cours en fonction de mes besoins
21. ______Accessibilité des installations physiques (ex. : portes, salles de cours, laboratoires)
22. ______Accessibilité aux cours d’éducation physique au Cégep
23. ______Disponibilité des services au Cégep pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités
Soutien et services de la communauté et du gouvernement
24. ______Disponibilité d’une aide financière
25. ______Disponibilité de tutorat à l’extérieur du Cégep
26. ______Service de transport public
27. ______Disponibilité des ordinateurs à l’extérieur du Cégep
28. ______Formation sur les technologies informatiques à l’extérieur du Cégep
29. ______Services adaptés pour les étudiant(es) ayant des incapacités à l’extérieur du Cégep
30. ______Disponibilité d’un moyen de transport adapté pour les étudiant(es) ayant des incapacités
31. ______Coordination des horaires des services spécialisés pour les étudiant(es) ayant des incapacités
(ex. : préposé(e) aux soins, transport adapté) et du Cégep
32. ______Disponibilité des adaptations / aides techniques à mon domicile (ex. : rampe d’accès, ATS)
27
Information pour nous rejoindre
Pour de plus amples informations et pour obtenir le texte intégral du rapport, veuillez consulter le site Web du Réseau de
Recherche Adaptech (http://www.adaptech.org ) ou contacter l’une des chercheures principales.
Catherine S. Fichten, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Shirley Jorgensen, M.B.A.
[email protected]
Alice Havel, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Maria Barile, M.S.W.
[email protected]
Réseau de Recherche Adaptech
Collège Dawson
3040, rue Sherbrooke Ouest
Montréal (Québec)
H3Z 1A4 Canada
Tél.: (514) 931-8731
Téléc.: (514) 931-3567
www.adaptech.org
28
Introduction
What happens to students with disabilities after Cegep? Do they continue their education? Get a job? Or become
unemployed? What do students see as helping or hindering their progress? What could Cegeps do to increase retention and
graduation rates of these students? The marked growth in the number of students with disabilities at Cegeps since the early
1980s makes it critical to evaluate how students are faring in the system.
As Québec moves toward a knowledge-based technology-driven economy, physical ability and sensory acuity will no
longer be pre-requisites for employment or involvement in community life. Therefore, people with disabilities will have an
unprecedented opportunity to participate fully in the workforce and all aspects of society. To realize this potential they, like
others, must succeed in postsecondary education. In Québec the first step is to attend and graduate from Cegep. Therefore,
removing obstacles and providing conditions that support success for learners with disabilities within these institutions are
vital.
To provide an educational environment in the Cegeps that helps ensure that students with disabilities are given every
opportunity to succeed requires that services be evaluated for their effectiveness. This allows disability related
accommodations to be modified in response to these research findings. The academic outcomes of all students with
disabilities, including those not registered for disability related services, needs to be examined and compared to their nondisabled peers so that environmental interventions can be initiated to improve the success of both groups of students.
Among the educational objectives announced by the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation (2000) is the goal of 40% of the
Québec population under age 30 attending a university within the next decade, with 30% graduating. For youth with
disabilities, similar targets also need to be adopted and monitored. However, for these targets to have a realistic chance of
being met, it is necessary for disability service units in the colleges to provide the necessary accommodations and to
evaluate the effectiveness of these services.
Background
Our data on a large number of Dawson College students over a 12 year period show that students with disabilities who
registered to receive disability related services do as well as their nondisabled peers in terms of grades, proportion of
courses passed, and graduation rates, although they take an average of one semester longer to graduate (Jorgensen, Fichten,
Havel, Lamb, James, & Barile, 2003; 2005). This suggests that investment in ensuring that students have the needed
accommodations are money and effort well spent.
As the numbers of students with disabilities in postsecondary education continue to rise (Bouchard & Veillette, 2005;
CADSPPE, 1999; Fournier & Tremblay, 2003, Tremblay, Gagné, & Le May, 2004; Tremblay & Le May, 2005; Wagner,
Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005), demands on disability service providers and disability related services will escalate
(Asuncion, Fichten, Barile, Fossey, & Robillard, 2004; Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, Robillard, Judd, Wolforth,
Senécal, Généreux, Guimont, Lamb, & Juhel, 2004). It is important that decision makers associated with budget allocations
are provided with evidence based research that shows the impact of investment in disability support services. Better systemwide collection of data on facilitators and obstacles to the success of students with disabilities is required to achieve this.
History. The public Cegeps provided postsecondary education to approximately 142,635 full time students in 2005
(Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2005). Postsecondary education is the key to training a labour force and, as
M. Rochon noted as long as five years ago (Ministère de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie, 2000), Québec is
working hard to meet the challenges of the new knowledge-based economy. Indeed, the 2001 Canadian Census showed that
of the increase in the labor force between 1991 and 2001, almost half of the growth "occurred in highly skilled occupations
that normally require university qualifications" (Statistics Canada, 2003). In its recently released report, Knowledge
Matters, the Government of Canada (2002) estimates that, “more than 70 percent of all new jobs created in Canada will
require some form of postsecondary education.” "Postsecondary education has been targeted as one of the key vehicles for
providing a labour force ready to meet the challenges of the new workplace. Human Resources Development Canada
estimates that nearly half of the jobs created in the next decade will require a minimum of 17 years of education" (Butlin,
1999, p. 9). Similar sentiments have also been voiced for the Québec context (e.g., Cartier, 2000). It is important, therefore,
29
that all students are given the opportunity to undertake the levels of postsecondary education that are necessary to ensure
full participation in the workforce of the future.
As we become increasingly reliant on the new knowledge-based economy, individuals with disabilities can have an
unprecedented opportunity to fully participate in the social and economic life of their communities. The 10% of Québec
residents over the age of 15 who have some level of disabilities (Statistics Canada, 2002) will have promising new
possibilities in an environment where valuable commodities are no longer physical goods and services but information and
knowledge (e.g., Loewen & Tomassetti, 2002; Wolfe & Gertler, 2001). However, this will only become a reality when they
have the same opportunities for postsecondary education as others in Québec.
It is only in the past 25 years that North American institutions of higher education have begun to recognize the need to
deliver disability related services to people with disabilities (Fichten, Bourdon, Creti, & Martos, 1987; Hill, 1992). This is
also true of Québec’s Cegeps (cf. Bouchard & Veillette, 2005; Leblanc, 1990, 1999; King, Mimouni, & Courtemanche,
2006; Mimouni, 2006). During this time, the number of students with disabilities in postsecondary education has increased
substantially in Québec, the US and the rest of Canada (e.g., Fournier & Tremblay, 2003; Hill, 1996; Harris Interactive
2000; 2004; Tremblay, Gagné, & Le May, 2004; Tousignant, 1995; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). The
increase has also been felt in the Cegeps (e.g., AQEHPS, 1999; Bouchard, et al., 2005; Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Robillard,
Fossey, & Lamb, 2003; Fichten, Landry, Jorgensen, Juhel, Tétreault, Barile, Havel, Fiset, Huard, & Amsel, 2006;
Généreux, 2001; Senécal, 1998). In general, students with disabilities are more likely to enroll in colleges than universities;
this is true of Québec, the rest of Canada, England and the United States (e.g., Fichten et al., 2003; Horn & Berktold, 1999;
Richardson, 2001; Richardson & Roy, 2002). Québec’s unique Cegep system, with its mixture of pre-university and
career/technical programs, makes it especially important to evaluate what happens to Cegep graduates with disabilities.
A number of documents express a high level of commitment in Québec to the inclusion of people with disabilities in
Québec society. In 1992 the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS, 1992) established goals for the year 2002.
Among these was the intention to, "diminuer les situations qui entraînaient un handicap." The first priority concerned school
and vocational inclusion (MSSS, 1992, p. 128). More recently, Francois Legault, when he was Minister of State for
Education and Youth, wrote in his introduction to a major policy document (Ministère de l'éducation du Québec, 1999) that,
"Young people with difficulties ask that we not only show concern for them but also help them achieve success. This is an
obligation from which no one can be exempted."
The Strategic Plan of the Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (2005) reiterates its commitment to support
students with special educational needs and to fostering their success and inclusion. In achieving this policy initiative to
help young people achieve success the Cegeps have an important role to play. Although the government’s strategic plan
focuses on the integration of students with special needs at the secondary level, full inclusion of young people with special
needs does not occur until they have equal access to higher education and are integrated into the workforce. Postsecondary
education needs to ensure that people with disabilities are able to compete on a level playing field in the job market and for
places at university once they graduate from Cegep. It is only then that individuals with disabilities will be able to fulfill
personal goals, attain economic independence, reduce their reliance on public funds and participate fully in the social and
economic life of their communities. It is important, therefore, that Cegeps have in place effective services to ensure that
students with disabilities are able to overcome educational disadvantages associated with their disability, and that they are
able to evaluate whether these services are achieving the intended goals.
In Canada, a substantially smaller proportion of individuals with disabilities (35%) than those without disabilities (49%)
have some postsecondary education (Statistics Canada, 1992). Data from the comprehensive PALS 2001 Statistics Canada
survey show that for Canadian youth aged 15 to 24, 7% of individuals with disabilities and 10% of nondisabled individuals
have completed college. The figures for university graduation are 3% and 7%, respectively (Human Resources
Development Canada, 2003). When it comes to working age Canadians, in 2001 a substantially smaller proportion of
Canadians with disabilities (38%) than those without disabilities (48%) had some postsecondary education (Statistics
Canada, 2003). This report also shows that although the percentages of Canadians with and without disabilities who
obtained junior/community college qualifications were similar (i.e., 16% vs. 17%), only 11% of working age Canadians
with disabilities graduated from university compared to 20% of those without disabilities.
Postsecondary graduates with and without disabilities have better employment outcomes than their counterparts with no
postsecondary education (e.g., Canadian Council on Social Development, 2002; 2004; undated; Horn & Berktold, 1999;
Government of Canada, 1996; Nichols, 1998; Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). The rates of employment for people who have a
university degree are higher than that of students who did not complete university, who, in turn, generally fare better than
30
those who never went to college (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2002; undated; Fawcett, 1996; Government of
Canada, 1996; Harris Interactive Inc., 2000 Nichols, 1998). For example, U.S. data show that in a large sample of university
graduates, of those who obtained a bachelor's degree in 1992-1993, 67% of graduates with disabilities and 73% of
nondisabled graduates were working a year later (Horn & Berktold, 1999). It has been shown that although employment of
postsecondary graduates with disabilities is somewhat lower than that of their nondisabled peers both in the U.S. (e.g., Horn
& Berktold, 1999) and Canada (Fawcett, 1996), once employed, salaries are similar and rates of employment are still
substantially higher than rates for those who did not complete postsecondary studies (Canadian Council on Social
Development, 2002; Horn & Berktold, 1999). Data on postsecondary students and graduates with disabilities indicate that
most want to work (Hubka & Killean, 1996).
Proportion of students with disabilities in North American postsecondary institutions. Data on the number of students
with disabilities on campus are affected by the definition of disability used, what question is asked, of whom it is asked, and
how percentages are calculated. Much research is based on self-reports by probability samples or freshman surveys,
although a substantial number are based on responses of campus based professionals who provide disability related services.
At most North American colleges and universities, including Cegeps, there is at least one designated person whose responsibility
it is to provide disability related services and accommodations to students with disabilities. Examples of the kind of services
offered include exam accommodations, advocacy, peer tutoring, production of academic material in alternative formats and
assistance with specialized computer technologies (e.g., Juhel, 2000). Students have the option to register for services and, in
most cases, need to provide documented proof of the disability and the need for specialized services.
There are many students with disabilities who do not register for services. Students do not register because they feel they do
not need services or because they do not wish to be "stigmatized" as a student who has a disability (Fichten, Bourdon, Creti, &
Martos, 1987; Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995). Other possible reasons include "denial" and, in the case of nonvisible
disabilities, the possible threat of being found out (cf. Livneh, 2001). Consequently, the rate of disability in the college
population is higher than reflected in the figures provided by the disability service providers for their postsecondary
institutions. Estimates from a number of self-report surveys conducted in the 1990s put the proportion of North American
postsecondary students with some disability at somewhere between 5% to 11%, with colleges having a larger proportion of
students with disabilities than universities. For example, the 1995-96 National Postsecondary Aid Study (cited by Horn &
Berktold, 1999) indicates that approximately 6% of 21,000 American university undergraduates surveyed indicated that
they had a disability. The 1994 freshman survey conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program studied
237,777 students attending 461 American universities and 2 year colleges (Henderson, 1995). The 1998 freshman survey
examined responses at 469 American junior/community colleges and universities. In both freshman surveys, approximately
9% of students reported at least one disability (Henderson, 1995, 1999). More recently, the freshman survey has looked
only at university students. Here the data show that 6% of freshmen reported having a disability (Henderson, 2001). The
most recent American study, which surveyed 120,000 students randomly selected from enrollment lists at about 1,600
postsecondary institutions, shows that, overall, 12.2% of public 2 year junior college students reported having a disability;
the corresponding figure for public 4 year universities with and without a doctoral program were 9.4% and 11% (D'Amico,
2006; Munsey, 2006).
In the late 1990s in Canada, according to the Canadian Association of Disability Service Providers in Post-Secondary
Education (CADSPPE) 7% percent of persons with disabilities reportedly participated in postsecondary education in
Canada (CADSPPE, 1999). Two surveys of enrolled students conducted at Dawson College in 2002 and 2005 indicate that
the percentage of students who reported a disability represented between 6.5% and 9.0% of the college’s student population,
consistent with the figures reported in the literature (Jorgensen, 2006). When it comes to postsecondary graduates, a decade
old Canadian survey based on self-reports showed that 6% of junior/community college graduates and 4% of university
graduates in 1995 indicated that they had a disability (Taillon & Paju, 1999).
In a study of Canadian disability service providers, however, we showed that in 1999, overall, only 2½% of students were
registered to receive disability related services from their colleges or universities and that this varied from ½% to 6% across
the country (Fichten, et al., 2003). Junior/community colleges had a higher percentage of students with disabilities registered
to receive disability related services (3¾%) than universities (1⅔%). The results also showed that Québec had a smaller
proportion of both college (⅔% vs. 6%) and university (½% vs. 2½%) students with disabilities than the rest of Canada. A
targeted study involving 46 professionals who provided disability related services in 1999 in Quebec’s Cegeps (Fichten,
Barile, Robillard, Fossey, Asuncion, Généreux, Judd, & Guimont, 2000) revealed that lack of recognition of learning
disabilities for postsecondary funding by the Quebec government is an important contributor to the low Québec percentages,
although this, alone cannot explain the huge discrepancies between Québec and the rest of Canada (Fichten, et al., 2003).
31
Disability related services and accommodations and institutional research. Data from the United States (e.g., Horn &
Berktold, 1999; Miller, 2001) and from selected Canadian postsecondary institutions (Outcomes Group, 1998) including
Cegeps (Jorgensen, et al., 2005) show that postsecondary students with disabilities who receive accommodation services
persist in their studies and graduate at similar rates to their nondisabled peers. The low number of postsecondary students, as
well as of workers, with disabilities in Québec compared to the rest of Canada (i.e., in the 2001 PALS survey, of working
age adults aged 15-64, only 33% of Québeckers with disabilities were employed compared to 42% for the totality of Canada
(Statistics Canada, 2003) makes it especially important to know about factors that facilitate or impede their academic and
vocational accomplishments. Only in this way can we improve pedagogical and student services and alter policies related to
students with disabilities to enhance their ability to succeed.
A concerted search of databases such as ERIC and PsycINFO, and the resources of specialized libraries such as that of the
Centre de documentation of the OPHQ and the Centre de documentation collégiale (CDC) revealed surprisingly little recent
research and no appropriate tools or instruments which investigate students' beliefs about what factors made their studies
easier or harder.
To enhance opportunities for Cegep students with disabilities and to enable them to succeed it is vital that reliable and valid
information on facilitators and obstacles to student success are available. This means following up with current students as
well as with those who have graduated or have failed to complete their studies. These data then need to be accessible to
those who are involved in the planning of curriculum and policy development as well as to those overseeing the delivery of
disability related services. For example, when it comes to making computer equipment available to students with disabilities
on campus, the Cegeps' centralized adaptive equipment loan bank system (SAIDE at Cégep du Vieux Montréal and les
Services adaptés of the Cégep de Ste-Foy) is not only innovative but also, as shown by our findings, a huge success
(Fichten, Barile, Robillard, Fossey, Asuncion, Généreux, Judd, & Guimont, 2000). Clearly this is one aspect of services for
students with disabilities that is a facilitator and needs to be retained.
When it comes to students with disabilities, neither Cegeps nor most other postsecondary institutions in Québec and the rest
of North America have a well-established program of evaluation. Although some studies have been carried out, these
generally use "home-made" instruments (e.g., Roessler & Kirk, 1998 for the University of Arkansas, Wolfe & Stokley,
1998, for Auburn University) that (1) have not been subjected to psychometric evaluation and consist of measures and items
for which reliability and validity are unknown, (2) were designed to answer specific questions related to a specific
institution's services for students with disabilities, and (3) fail to compare responses of students with disabilities to those of
nondisabled students. In addition, a very recent survey was conducted by NEADS to evaluate the alternate formats needs of
students with print impairments (Kilmurray & Faba, with the collaboration of Alphonse & Smith, 2005). However, although
recent and comprehensive, this survey deals only with alternate formats and has a low participation rate from Cegep
students. There is one measure prepared for a wide-based audience of Canadian students with disabilities (Killean & Hubka,
1999). This, however, is 11 dense pages long, making easy administration and high response rates unlikely. In addition,
there are wide-ranging measures of student outcomes designed for American students with disabilities (e.g., Horn &
Berktold, 1999) and there exists a Québec-based survey of students with disabilities who failed to complete high school
(Charest, 1997). Perhaps most relevant is a measure prepared by André Leblanc (1999) for his thesis, which was cosupervised by one of us (Fichten), on the history of students with disabilities at Champlain College. Although Leblanc's
research bears directly on Cegep related issues, he did not examine students' perceptions of individual and environmental
obstacles and facilitators.
To the best of our knowledge, only one study has investigated employment outcomes of Cegep students with disabilities
(HERMES-Information stratégique, 1999). Although the sample was small, it highlights issues and concerns of interest to
Cegep students with different types of disabilities and discusses environmental obstacles and facilitators to acquiring a job.
Cegeps generally carry out follow-up studies of their students in the career/technical programs (e.g., Direction générale de
l’enseignement collégial, 1993). These are used, in part, to report students' vocational outcomes to a centralized Ministère
de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) grouping such as the Service régional d’admission du Montréal métropolitain
(SRAM). How Cegeps do this is highly individualized. In general, there are several problems with using this approach to
gather information about students with disabilities, including: the lack of a means for respondents to identify their disability
status, the lack of information about facilitators and obstacles impacting students with disabilities in achieving successful
post Cegep academic and vocational outcomes, and the lack of adaptations of formats to make surveys suitable for those
who need an accessible version (e.g., students with print impairments).
32
Goals
To remove barriers, support success for students with disabilities in our postsecondary institutions and further inform policy
development it is imperative that accurate information reflecting realities of diverse aspects of the Cegep community be
made available to concerned groups and individuals so that they can: (a) help recruit, retain, and graduate students with
disabilities, (b) ensure that these students have appropriate opportunities for further education and employment after they
graduate, and (c) determine factors which influence the academic outcomes of students with disabilities that are unique to
them and that are not evident from studies of nondisabled students. The overall goal of the present research was to provide
such information which, ultimately, will help students with disabilities graduate and successfully compete for positions at
university and in the workplace.
To realize this goal in the present research we (1) conducted a systematic study of what Cegep based disability service
providers and current students with various disabilities perceive as important facilitators and obstacles in pursuing Cegep
studies and in succeeding in the system, and (2) explored post Cegep educational and vocational outcomes and views about
facilitators and obstacles of recent Cegep graduates with and without disabilities from both pre-university and
career/technical programs. Because we surveyed all graduates from the three Cegeps with the largest enrollments of students
with disabilities (i.e., Dawson College, Cégep de Ste-Foy, Cégep du Vieux Montréal), we were able to compare the views of
nondisabled graduates, graduates with disabilities who registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep as
well as graduates with disabilities who did not register to receive services. To the best of our knowledge, nothing is known
about this latter group, which makes up a very large segment of postsecondary students with disabilities (Fichten, Asuncion,
Barile, Robillard, Fossey, & Lamb, 2003).
Specific goals are as follows.
• Examine what makes it easier (facilitators) and harder (obstacles) for students with disabilities to succeed in their
Cegep studies
• Explore similarities and differences between nondisabled Cegep graduates and graduates with disabilities who were and
who were not registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep
• Describe what happens to students with disabilities after graduation
• Provide a questionnaire for use in institutional evaluation
• Inform policy development and practice
Objectives. The objectives are to realize these goals by
• Providing descriptive data about individual, Cegep related, and external community based facilitators, obstacles, and
things to change from the perspectives of:
o Current students registered to receive disability related services
o Cegep based disability service providers
o Three groups of recent Cegep graduates
Nondisabled graduates
Graduates with disabilities registered to receive disability related services
Graduates with disabilities who were not registered
• Comparing views of current students with disabilities and Cegep based disability service providers
• Examining facilitators and obstacles for students with different types of impairments
• Comparing responses of graduates with disabilities registered and not registered to receive disability related services
from their Cegep
• Comparing the post Cegep outcomes of the three groups of recent Cegep graduates
• Refining the Cegep Experience Questionnaire
33
Table 1 below provides an outline of the three phases of the research.
Table 1
Phases
Samples
Start
End
Phase 1
Service providers at public Cegeps
• Phone survey
Current students registered for disability related services in the Winter 2005 semester at
their Cegep
• Cegep Experience Questionnaire - distributed by répondants
• Completed twice: test and retest
Graduates (Dawson, CVM, Saint-Foy) with and without disabilities
• Cegep Experience Questionnaire & Post Cegep Questionnaire - mailed
Oct.
2004
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005
July
2005
Jan.
2005
July
2005
Phase 2
Phase 3
Conceptual Framework: PPH Model (Processus de production du handicap)
As noted earlier, over 10 years ago the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS, 1992) established goals for
Québec society. Among these was the intention to, "diminuer les situations qui entraînaient un handicap." The first priority
concerned school and vocational inclusion (MSSS, 1992, p. 128). One of our objectives was to explore this issue by
examining the findings from the perspective of the conceptual framework dominant in Québec: Fougeyrollas et al.'s PPH
model (Processus de production du handicap: Fougeyrollas & Beauregard, 2001; Fougeyrollas, Lippel, St-Onge, Gervais,
Boucher, Bernard, & Lavoie, 1999; RIPPH, undated).
The PPH is a Québec based model which proposes that a “situation de handicap” (i.e., reduced ability to perform daily activities)
is the result of the interaction between individual factors (i.e., impairments and disabilities - the biological factors) on the one
hand, and the environment (which consists of obstacles and facilitators), on the other. According to the model, the goal is to
reduce or eliminate the barriers that hinder participation. This can only happen if a person is able to perform daily activities
required for specific tasks. It is important that both individual and environmental aspects be taken into consideration, « Les
éléments forts du modèle conceptuel permettent ainsi de distinguer entre ce qui appartient à la personne (facteurs personnels) et
ce qui appartient à l'environnement (facteurs environnementaux) faisant, de ce fait, du handicap un résultat situationnel et non
plus une caractéristique personnelle » (RIPPH, undated).
A third concept that interacts with personal and environmental factors is life habits ("habitudes de vie"). A life habit is described
as “a daily activity or social role valued by the person or his or her sociocultural context according to his or her characteristics”
(Fougeyrollas & Beauregard, 2001, p. 183). In the case of education, "life habits" involve attending college, studying, writing,
and reading (cf. Lemieux-Brassard, 1996). For the purposes of the present study, life habits, such as paid employment, previous
education experiences, and family situation, have been included under the construct of personal factors as we view these
concepts to be closely related. In our view, the social participation involved in life habits plays a role in shaping the individual:
experiences lead to the acquisition of knowledge and the formation of identity.
In the context of the PPH model, "impairment" (déficience) refers to the degree to which a person is affected physiologically.
"Disability" (incapacité) refers to a degree of reduction of ability. Of particular interest to this investigation are the notions of
"situation de handicap" (a reduction in ability to perform daily activities) and "situation de participation sociale" (full
participation). These are due to the interaction between personal factors and environmental obstacles (i.e., create obstacles to
access) and environmental facilitators (i.e., make execution of a task easier) (cf. Lemieux-Brassard, 2002). For example, certain
pedagogical practices, such as talking while students are viewing a film in a darkened classroom, can create an environmental
obstacle for students with hearing impairments. On the other hand, when giving a lecture, having an interpreter in class or an FM
system would be facilitating.
To better understand factors that facilitate success among students with disabilities in this investigation we examined the nature
of disability related individual and environmental factors (facilitators as well as obstacles) that help students succeed in their
34
Cegep studies. We applied the PPH model to the construction of our measure, and we examined the nature and impact of
disability related obstacles and facilitators in influencing how students with disabilities fare in Cegep.
In the present investigation the main measure, the Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), evaluates personal (e.g., health,
financial situation) factors, Cegep specific environmental factors (e.g., accessibility of classrooms, attitudes of professors), and
community based environmental factors (e.g., availability of adapted transportation, availability of computer technologies offcampus) that students see as facilitating or hindering their progress.
Key PPH model concepts in the context of the present research.
•
•
•
•
•
Personal situation (e.g., health, financial situation)
Cegep environment (e.g., availability of needed disability related services, attitudes of professors)
Community and government based environmental factors (e.g., availability of needed external support services
such as home-care or mobility training, availability of needed adapted transportation)
Obstacles are factors that make Cegep studies more difficult
Facilitators are factors that make Cegep studies easier
The Present Investigation
In this investigation we examined views about obstacles and facilitators of academic success as perceived by Cegep
graduates with and without disabilities as well as by Cegep based disability service providers and currently enrolled Cegep
students with a variety of disabilities. Because both student and service provider perspectives are valid and reflect different
aspects of the Cegep experience, information is needed about both views. The sampling also allowed us to determine
similarities and differences between the experiences of nondisabled graduates and of graduates with disabilities who did,
and those who did not, register to receive disability related services. It also enabled us to examine what happens to students
after they graduate from Cegep (i.e., find out whether they were employed, continuing their studies, or doing something
else) and to estimate what proportion of individuals with disabilities register to receive disability related services from their
Cegep.
To accomplish this we studied (a) Cegep based disability service providers, (b) students with all types of disabilities who
were enrolled at one of the 48 public Cegeps at the time of testing and who were registered to receive disability related
services, and (c) three groups of recent graduates (nondisabled, with a disability and registered to receive services, with a
disability and not registered to receive services). The graduates were sampled from three large Cegeps: Dawson College,
Cégep du Vieux Montréal, and Cégep de Sainte-Foy. Disabilities studied included: learning disability/ADD, mobility
impairment, hearing impairment, medically related condition, psychological disability, limitation in the use of hands/arms,
low vision, blindness, neurological impairment, Deafness, speech/language impairment, and PDD (pervasive developmental
We also obtained data to answer the following questions: What programs are students with disabilities registered in at the
college? What are graduates doing approximately one year after graduation? What are seen as personal, Cegep based, and
external community based facilitators and barriers to academic success? What can students, Cegeps and community based
organizations do to facilitate the success outcomes of students with disabilities?
35
Methodology
Overview
The study was carried out in 3 phases.
• Phase 1 - 57 disability service providers completed the measures by telephone interview during the fall 2004 semester.
They completed the following measures:
o Demographic Questions
o Open-Ended Easier-Harder-Change Questions
o Cegep Experience Questionnaire
•
Phase 2 - 300 current students registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep completed similar
measures during the winter 2005 semester. 159 of them completed the measures a second time, a minimum of 4 weeks
later (test-retest). They completed the following measures:
•
Phase 3 - 1486 recent graduates with and without disabilities from 2 French and 1 English Cegep completed the
measures. 182 of these graduates indicated that they had a disability. 1304 had no disability. They completed the
following measures:
o Post Cegep Questionnaire
Table 2 below provides a summary of the 5 samples and the measures they completed.
Table 2
Overview Of The 5 Samples And The Measures They Completed
Cegep
Based
Disability
Service
Providers
Current
Students
Registered
to Receive
Disability
Related
Services
Introductory Letter - Informed
Consent Form
X
Demographic Questions
Measures
Graduates:
From the 3 participating Cegeps: Dawson College,
Cégep du Vieux Montréal and Cégep de Sainte-Foy
With A Disability
Nondisabled
Registered to
receive disability
related services
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Open-Ended Easier-HarderChange Questions
X
X
X
X
X
Cegep Experience Questionnaire
X
X
X
X
X
Post Cegep Questionnaire:
n/a
n/a
X
X
X
Not registered to
receive disability
related services
36
Participants
There were five samples of volunteer participants: (1) Cegep based disability service providers, (2) students with all types
of disabilities who were enrolled at the time of testing at one of the public Cegeps and who were registered to receive
disability related services (current students), and three groups of recent graduates: (3) graduates who are nondisabled, (4)
graduates with a disability who were registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep, and (5) graduates
with disabilities who were not registered to receive disability related services. These were recent graduates of three large
Cegeps: Dawson College, Cégep du Vieux Montréal, and Cégep de Sainte-Foy. The three participating Cegeps are among
the five largest Cegeps, with enrolments in excess of 6000 full time students. All three have been designated, and funded by
the Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS), as specialized "centres d'accueil" (Ministère de l’éducation du
Québec, 1998). These host the largest numbers of students with disabilities. Detailed sample characteristics are available in
the Results section.
Cegep based disability service providers. Fifty-seven Cegep based disability service providers, 24 men and 33 women,
participated. Respondents were selected from the 48 public anglophone and francophone Cegeps listed on the web page of
the Fédération des cégeps (2006). They represent 42 of the 46 eligible Cegeps (2 Cegeps had no students with disabilities, 4
Cegeps could not be reached, and some Cegeps had more than one service provider). The distance education unit of the
Cégep de Rosemont (Centre collégial de formation à distance) was excluded because many of the questions of interest are
not applicable to a college with no physical “campus.” 10 service providers were situated in English Cegeps and 47 in
French Cegeps. They represent 83% of potential participants whom we approached.
Current Cegep students with disabilities. Three hundred current students with various disabilities, 113 males and 187
females, participated: 188 from French Cegeps and 112 from English Cegeps. They represent 32 of the 43 Cegeps where
campus based disability service providers handed out questionnaires. Their mean age was 21 (range = 17-50, median = 20).
All were registered with their Cegep to receive disability related services and all were enrolled in continuing education or in
the regular day division, either in a 2 year pre-university program or in a 3 year career/technical program. 159 of these
students were retested and completed the questionnaire twice. It can be seen from Table 3 below that the 300 students
represent a 32% response rate.
Table 3
Current Student Return Rates
CEQ TEST
CEQ RETEST
Sent
Received
%
Sent
Received
%
928
300
32%
255
159
62%
French
507
188
37%
157
102
65%
English
Male
Female
421
112
113
187
27%
98
57
48
111
58%
Total
37
Graduates. Of the 5251 recent graduates (i.e., received a diploma in the context of their studies either in a 2 year preuniversity program or in a 3 year career program within the previous 5-12 months) of 3 large Cegeps (2 French, 1 English)
who were sent questionnaires, a total of 1486 returned usable responses for a total return rate of 28%. 1032 graduates were
males, 451 were females, and 3 failed to indicate their sex. The average age of the graduates was 22.5 years. Details are
available in Table 4.
Table 4
Graduate Participants: Return Rates Per Cegep
Number of
Questionnaires Sent
Cegep
Total
Dawson College
Cégep de Ste-Foy
Cégep du Vieux Montréal
Number of
Return Rate (%)
Questionnaires Received
5251
2120
1844
1287
1486
492
620
374
28%
23%
34%
29%
It can be seen in Table 5x that of the 182 graduates responding, 12%, indicated that they had a disability. The percentages
from the three participating Cegeps were similar and ranged from 11% to 14%. Of the 182 participants with disabilities, only
24 (13%) were registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep.
Table 5
Graduate Participants With No Disabilities And Graduates With Disabilities Who Were, And Who Were Not Registered To
Receive Disability Related Services
Cegep
Dawson College
Cégep de Sainte-Foy
Cégep du Vieux Montréal
Total
Number Of Questionnaires Graduates With Graduates With Disabilities: Graduates With Disabilities: Not
Received
Disabilities Registered To Receive Services Registered To Receive Services
492
620
374
1486
61 (12%)
68 (11%)
53 (14%)
182 (12%)
11
6
7
24
50
62
46
158
Graduates with disabilities (M = 23.0, SD = 4.3) were slightly, but significantly older than graduates without disabilities (M
= 22.4, SD = 3.4), t(1476) = 2.13, p = .033. The sex breakdown was 69.5% female and 30.4% male. A chi-square test, χ2
(1, N = 1483) = 0.76, p = 0.384, showed no significant difference between the proportions of male and female graduates
with disabilities (Males = 27.6%; Females = 72.4%) compared to those without disabilities (Males = 30.8%; Females =
69.2%).
38
Measures
All participants completed a two page questionnaire. The first page included a brief set of objective demographic questions,
three open-ended questions asking respondents to indicate, in an open-ended manner, 3 factors that make Cegep studies easier,
3 factors that make Cegep studies harder, and 3 things that could be changed to make Cegep studies easier. For Cegep
graduates, page 1 also inquired about current activities including employment and continuing studies. Page 2 was devoted to
the College Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). English and French versions of the CEQ are enclosed in the Appendix.
Demographic Questions. Each sample was administered pertinent demographic questions related to: sex, age, Cegep
program, nature of the student's disabilities/impairments, years working providing services to students with disabilities, and
number of students registered to receive disability related services at the Cegep. Most of the questions on this measure have
been used in our previous studies (Fichten, Barile, & Asuncion, 1999; Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, Barile, 2005).
Enrollment statistics. To enable us to compare the proportion of students with disabilities who are registered to receive
disability related services from the Cegep to our data from 1999 (Barile, Fichten, Robillard, Fossey, Généreux, & Guimont,
2000) we asked service providers to answer the following question, "Since the beginning of the 2004-2005 academic year,
approximately how many students identified themselves to receive disability related services at your Cegep?" We also
obtained "official figures" for 2004 fall provided by the 3 "centres d'accueil:" by the Service d'Aide à l'Intégration Des Élèves
(SAIDE) at Cégep du Vieux Montréal (Fiset, 2004), by les Services adaptés du Cégep de Sainte-Foy (Juhel, 2004), and by
Alice Havel of Dawson College (personal communication, 2005). These official figures represent the number of students for
whom an individualized education plan (IIP) had been submitted to the MELS and approved, and for whom the Cegep is
funded to deliver disability related services. To obtain total college enrollment statistics we consulted the web site of the
MELS, which provides full time enrollment data for 2004 (Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2005). To find out
about the disabilities of students at the Cegeps we also asked campus based disability service providers to indicate whether
they have ever provided services for students in the following disability categories: learning disability / ADD, mobility
impairment, hearing impairment, medically related condition, psychological disability, limitation in the use of hands / arms,
low vision, blindness, neurological impairment, Deafness, speech / language impairment, and PDD (pervasive developmental
Open-Ended Easier-Harder-Change Questions. Three open-ended items were included. These asked respondents to
identify the 3 most important factors that make Cegep studies easier, the 3 most important factors that make Cegep studies
harder, and 3 things that could be changed to make Cegep studies easier. The easier-harder questions have been used in our
previous research (Nguyen, Fichten, Barile, & Lévesque, in press; Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, Barile, 2005).
Post Cegep Questionnaire. A series of 4 questions inquired about whether the graduate was currently studying (full or part
time), working (full or part time), and, if working, to what extent the work was related to their Cegep education. These
questions were adapted from the SRAM survey questions (cf. SRAM, 2003).
Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). This 1 page 32 item questionnaire, which is included in the Appendix, is based
on the PPH model (Processus de production du handicap: Fougeyrollas et al., 1999). It was originally developed and
validated on English and French speaking students with physical disabilities in the context of our PAREA research (Fichten,
Jorgensen, Havel, & Barile, 2005). Although the validation included alternate formats, students who had only learning
disabilities or psychiatric impairments were excluded. Therefore, the measure was modified for the present investigation
and a 10 item section dealing with Service Provision was added for disability service providers. Service Provision items are
based on the findings of a nominal group with disability service providers.
Students and graduate respondents used a 6-point Likert-type response scale (1 = much harder, 6 = much easier, as well as
not applicable) and indicated the extent to which each item made their Cegep studies easier or harder. The measure can be
scored on an item-by-item basis and also has an overall Index of Difficulty (IDF) and 3 Subscale scores: Students' Personal
Situation, Cegep Environment, and Government and Community Supports and Services. To compile Subscale scores, data
from participants who answered a minimum of 50% of items on the Subscale in question were used. IDF scores were
calculated only for those participants who completed at least 50% of all items. Two sets of Subscale and IDF scores were
calculated for graduates with disabilities: those which included and those which excluded disability specific items.
39
The response scale used for students and graduates was not appropriate for campus based disability service providers.
Therefore, we changed the response scale for disability service providers to a 5-point Likert-type scale of importance (1 =
not important, 5 = extremely important, as well as not applicable).
Procedure
Ethics. On an Information and Consent Form current students with disabilities and graduates from the two French Cegeps
were informed about the nature and requirements of the research (Dawson College graduates were sent the usual
institutional research information). Individuals were informed that participation is voluntary and that confidentiality will be
maintained. Students and graduates were assured that neither their campus based disability service provider nor any of the
disability service provider team members would be able to associate their responses with their names. All participants were
told about the purpose of the project, risks and benefits envisaged, the task requirements, the right to withdraw at any time
without penalty and measures taken to ensure confidentiality. They were informed that they may discuss any questions or
concerns about this study with the principal investigator, Catherine Fichten (514-931-8731 #1546). The protocol and the
Information and Consent Form were approved by Dawson's Institutional Ethics Committee.
Modifications to measures. The first activity was to adapt the questions to the needs of: current students with learning
disabilities/attention deficit disorders and those with psychiatric impairments, Cegep based disability service providers, and
graduates with all types of disabilities as well as those without disabilities. Because we already obtained focus group data
from students with all types of disabilities in the context of previous research (Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, & Barile, 2005),
we had the requisite information to make needed modifications to the measure to allow students with a variety of disabilities
to complete it. The modified student and graduate versions of the measures were made available in French and English in
the following formats: regular and large print, Word, and Web-based versions. The modified items and the new Web-based
versions were extensively pre-tested with both current students and graduates with disabilities as well as with nondisabled
graduates. The Demographic Questions were also slightly modified for students and graduates.
A series of questions were added for campus based disability service providers to obtain relevant demographic information
on these participants as well as on their Cegep. These questions were adapted from measures previously used successfully
in our research (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, Robillard, Judd, Wolforth, Senécal, Généreux, Guimont, Lamb, & Juhel,
2004). In addition, a series of 10 questions related to Service Provision were added for disability service providers. These
were based on two data sources: open-ended written responses of 57 Cegep based disability service providers about
facilitators and obstacles to the success of students with disabilities and the results of a nominal group activity carried out
with 15 disability service providers. These activities are described below.
In addition, because the response scale used for students and graduates was not appropriate for the campus based disability
service provider questions, we changed the response scale for disability service providers to a 5-point Likert-type scale of
importance (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important, as well as not applicable). The new items and the new response
scale were administered to 3 disability service providers in a pilot study. No further psychometric testing was done on the
modifications for this sample.
Open-ended written responses and nominal group of Cegep based disability service providers. To establish content for the
additional items for the CEQ for campus based disability service providers, in May 2004 during the "Journée des
répondants" activities held at Cégep de Sainte-Foy and Cégep du Vieux Montréal we asked disability service providers to
provide written, anonymous answers to the following 4 questions: Please tell us how each of the following factors plays a
role in making the postsecondary studies of students with disabilities easier and harder: (1) the personal situation of the
student (such as financial situation; paid employment; family; friends; level of personal motivation; study habits; previous
education experiences; health; impact of the disability), (2) the environment internal to your Cegep (such as difficulty of
courses; course load; attitudes and knowledge of professors; attitudes and knowledge of non-teaching staff (e.g.,
registration, financial aid staff); attitudes of fellow students; computers on campus; availability of course materials;
accessibility of the Cegep; accessibility of Cegep extracurricular activities; willingness of professors to adapt courses
student’s needs; accessibility of classrooms; accessibility of labs; accessibility of Cegep physical education courses;
availability of disability related services at the Cegep), (3) the external environment (such as availability of financial aid;
private tutoring; public transport; availability of computers off-campus; computer technologies training off-campus;
disability related support services off-campus; availability of adapted transportation for people with disabilities; scheduling
40
conflicts between disability related support services (e.g., attendant, adapted transport) and school; availability of physical
adaptations at home (e.g., ramp, lift, mobility aids), and (4) any other categories or items that we have missed. 21
individuals provided responses which we grouped into factors that made Cegep studies easier or harder for students with
disabilities.
We also held a nominal group session with 15 disability service providers in the context of a Journée des Répondants at
Cégep de Sainte-Foy. Here, 15 disability service providers indicated 55 factors that they felt made Cegep studies easier or
harder for students with disabilities. They then, as a group, classified each as "essential, important, unimportant" for student
success. Items with an "essential" rating were adapted and included as Service Provision items on the CEQ.
Phase 1: Disability service providers. We tried to telephone disability service providers at the 48 public Cegeps. When we
managed to reach someone we described the study to them and asked them to participate. For a 2 week period we
repeatedly telephoned service providers, hoping to reach them directly. If we did not succeed in doing so, we left up to 3
messages indicating the purpose of the call and inviting the campus based disability service provider to call us back. In this
way we were able to obtain the participation of 57 individuals. Two Cegeps indicated that they had no students with
disabilities. We were not able to obtain the participation of any service provider from 4 Cegeps. Several Cegeps had more
than 1 individual who provided services to students with disabilities (e.g., different campuses geographically distant,
services are provided by different individuals for students with learning and with other disabilities). We interviewed all
disability service providers who were willing to participate. Thus the 57 campus based disability service provider
participants represent 42 Cegeps which enrolled at least 1 student with a disability in the fall 2004 semester. 69 individuals
were contacted, so the 57 participants represent a response rate of 83%.
A time was scheduled for the interview for all disability service providers who agreed to participate. The structured
interview included the following measures: Demographic Questions, Open-Ended Easier-Harder-Change Questions, Cegep
Experience Questionnaire. Questions were faxed or e-mailed to participants prior to the scheduled appointment to assist in
the process. This included the Introductory Letter - Informed Consent Form. To encourage honest responses, even if these
did not reflect well on their Cegep, participants were assured that the information that they provided would never be linked
either to themselves or to their Cegep. During the phone call the interviewer read each question and gave the respondent
ample time to answer. Clarification was provided if participants were unsure of the meaning of particular questions.
Phase 2: Current students registered to receive disability related services from their Cegeps. Participants were
students with disabilities who were enrolled in a Cegep in the winter 2005 semester and who were registered to receive
disability related services from their Cegep at the time of testing. All students received a 4 page packet (Introductory Letter
- Informed Consent Form, Demographic Questions, Open-Ended Easier-Harder-Change Questions, Cegep Experience
Questionnaire) and a stamped, self addressed envelope as well as a "tear-off coupon" form to complete. This coupon asked
about their coordinates and asked whether we may contact the student again for future studies. The Introductory Letter Informed Consent Form advised students that when we received their completed questionnaire and coupon we would send
them $5 as a token of our appreciation for helping us with this research and that one participant would receive an additional
$25. Students were informed that they could complete the questionnaire on paper, by email, or online in French or English
and that they could request a different format (e.g., large print).
We recruited students with the assistance of campus based disability service providers at the public Cegeps. We phoned
disability service providers and asked for their help in distributing packages. We then asked how many packages, in regular
and in large print, they wished to have and either gave these to the disability service providers directly or couriered this to
them just before the Christmas break in the fall 2004 semester. We suggested to disability service providers that they could
make the questionnaires available in their offices so that when students came to consult in the new semester they could pick
up the packages. An alternative was that they could mail them to students (we offered to reimburse postage costs). 43
campus based disability service providers indicated that they had distributed questionnaires.
Disability service providers were contacted by a research team member several times during the spring 2005 semester to
find out how things were going, to remind disability service providers to keep distributing questionnaires and, finally, to
obtain a total number of the questionnaire packages distributed.
Four weeks after receipt of their questionnaires we mailed all participants who indicated their name the $5 honorarium. Of
the 300 usable questionnaires received, 255 current students indicated that we may contact them again. Four weeks after
receipt of their questionnaires we mailed these 255 students a new questionnaire packet, this time informing them that the
41
honorarium would be $10 and that by completing the questionnaire a second time they would qualify for a second chance at
the $25. 159 of these students completed the retest for a response rate of 62%. The mean test-retest duration was 6 weeks
(range = 4 to 17 weeks, median = 6 weeks).
Phase 3: Three groups of graduates. In January 2005, between 5 and 10 months after graduation, all 5251 graduates (i.e.,
from both career/technical and pre-university programs) at the three participating Cegeps (i.e., Vieux Montréal, Cégep de
Sainte-Foy, Dawson College) were mailed a cover letter and the Demographic Questions, Open-Ended Easier-HarderChange Questions, Cegep Experience Questionnaire, and Post Cegep Questionnaire and a stamped, self addressed envelope.
Graduates' student numbers appeared on the questionnaire. Graduates were informed that they may request a different format or
language and that they could answer using any format they wish. They were given 2 weeks to return the questionnaires.
Three weeks after the first mailing the questionnaires were once more sent to graduates who had not replied. For graduates at
Dawson College the questionnaire was included as part of a larger institutional research package for graduates. For the other
two Cegeps only the measures described above were mailed.
182 (12%) of the 1486 graduates who responded self-identified as having a disability. The student numbers of these
graduates were checked against the colleges' records to determine how many of them had been registered with their Cegep to
receive disability related services.
Open-Ended Easier-Harder-Change Questions
A coding manual consisting of 65 categories of Facilitators and Obstacles to the academic success of current students with
and without disabilities was used. This is a modification of a 60 item manual that was developed in our previous
investigation (Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, & Barile, 2005; Nguyen, Fichten, Barile, & Lévesque, in press). This was
modified by the addition of 5 items to take into account responses of graduates and of disability service providers. A 40
item coding manual was developed to evaluate recommendations for changes. Tables 6 and 9 provide listings. Three coders,
trained to a minimum of 80% item-by-item inter-rater agreement (which required approximately 30 hours of training) who
were blind to student and graduate participants' group, classified responses to each question into the Facilitator and Obstacle
codes. 5 coders, also blind to students' and graduates' disability status, coded recommendations made in response to the item
which asked how things could be improved into 40 Change content codes. Responses of campus based disability service
providers were obtained though interview, making the format different. 2 trained coders jointly coded these responses.
Inter-rater agreement (%) is calculated as follows: 2 x Number of Agreements / (Number of codes recorded by Coder 1 +
Number of codes recorded by Coder 2). Inter-rater agreements for obstacles and facilitators were assessed on 33 checks of
reliability (15 on Facilitators and 18 on Obstacles on responses of 360 participants). 3 of the checks of reliability fell below
the target minimum of 70%; in all instances the protocols coded since the last reliability calibration were redone. 13
reliability checks were made on the Change codes of 1340 participants. Average inter-rater reliability for Obstacles /
Facilitators codes was 87% (range: 74% - 96%; Cohen's kappa score for facilitators was .86 for one pair of coders and .81
for the second pair; it was .86 and .83 for the two pairs of coders for obstacles). The corresponding value for Change codes
was 82% (range: 72% - 95%; Cohen's kappa was .82). As an additional means of ensuring the integrity of coding, after all
protocols were completed two of the coders went back and re-checked all codes.
42
Table 6
Obstacles/Facilitators Coding Manual
Facilitators
One-word Reminder
academic advising / aide
pédagogique
Description (code 600s)
API, conseiller pédagogique, availability of advisors,
academic counselling, patience and willingness to help
Obstacles
Code #
1
accessibility: building / accessibilité escalator, elevators, ramps, ouvertures, heures du
: édifice
cégep
2
accessibility: course / accessibilité: easily readable notes, not writing on the board, voir bien
cours
le cinéma dans la classe
3
accommodations / adaptations
accommodations: books /
adaptations: livres
accommodations: services for
students with disabilities /
adaptations: centre pour étudiants
ayant des besoins spéciaux
no other specifier
books on tape, lecture à l'aide de cassette
4
5
centre for students with disabilities, centre for students
with learning disabilities, accueil et soutien par le service
adapté
6
One-word Reminder
academic advising / aide
pédagogique
needs improvement, misleading, not helpful, noncoopération, inefficacité et désintérêt de mon API
accessibility: building / accessibilité not accessible, have to walk far, mobility class to class,
: édifice
broken stairs, l'absence d'un ascenseur convenable,
l'inaccessibilité d'un local de cours
accessibility: course / accessibilité: small print, can't see blackboard/overhead, teacher
cours
writes on board and talks at the same time, la diffusion
de films non sous-titrés en classe
no other specifier
accommodations: books /
format des livres
adaptations: livres
accommodations: services for
limited staffing and training, lack of institutional support
students with disabilities /
and accessibility, manque de services
adaptations: centre pour étudiants
ayant des besoins spéciaux
accommodations: pre-registration / pre-registration, early, help picking teachers
adaptations: pré-inscription
7
accommodations: pre-registration / lack of, problems with
adaptations: pré-inscription
accommodations: exam room /
adaptations: local d'examens
8
accommodations: exam room /
adaptations: local d'examens
no quiet test taking area
9
accommodations: FM system /
adaptations: système MF
accommodations: interpreter/
adaptations/ interprète
accommodations: large print /
adaptations: impression en gros
caractères
accommodations: note taker /
adaptations: preneur de notes
le fait de n'avoir pas utiliser l'appareil MF en attente d'un
meilleur
difficile d'obtenir un interprète à moins de 24 heures
d'avis, rencontre avec professeur sans interprète
difficulty obtaining material in large print
accommodations: FM system /
adaptations: système MF
accommodations: interpreter/
adaptations/ interprète
accommodations: large print /
adaptations: impression en gros
caractères
accommodations: note taker /
adaptations: preneur de notes
accommodations: taped exams /
adaptations: examens enregistrés
sur cassette audio
accommodations: taping /
adaptations: enregistrement
accommodations: time /
adaptations: temps
attendance / présence en classe
cegep environment /
environnement du cégep
classes small / classes petit
groupe
classmates / collègues de classe
exam given in a room other than classroom, chambre
spéciale pour les élèves avec des difficultés pour faire
les examens
l'utilisation d'un système MF
avoir des interprètes avec moi dans les cours
10
agrandissement de documents, enlarged exams are
very helpful
11
scribe, notes made available
12
exams on tape, enregistrement des examens
13
taping classes
14
extra time for exams and assignments, plus de temps
pour les examens
have to show up, la présence à tous les cours
environment of the college is pleasing, student life,
athletics, non academic activities, clubs, student
organizations, location downtown, atmosphere, places
to hang out, attitude of students, meeting new people,
environnement physique, proximité des lieux,
résidences proches du cégep
15
accommodations: taped exams /
adaptations: examens enregistrés
sur cassette audio
accommodations: taping /
adaptations: enregistrement
accommodations: time /
adaptations: temps
cegep environment /
environnement du cégep
la difficulté à comprendre les notes de quelqu'un d'autre,
les preneurs de note n'arrivent pas à l'heure ou
s'absentent sans m'aventir
lack of, problems with
lack of, problems with
manque de temps pour les travaux et lors des examens
size of class is good, groupe d'étudiants restreint
18
didn't go to class, les cours où j'étais absente
unpleasant, confusing hierarchical institution, distraction
from students and staff, freedom, administration, bad
social environment, downtown distractions,
temperature/lighting (not specified), pas de
stationnement, not knowing about activities offered on
campus, le snobisme de certaines personnes étudiant
au cégep, la vie scolaire, cafétéria, l'ambiance
classes big / classes grand groupe size of class is too big, classes avec beaucoup d'élèves
helpful, friendly, class atmosphere, peer support, groupe
stable
19
16
17
college pre-registration / service de pre-registering for certain classes
pré-inscription du cégep
college size / taille du cégep
the school was very big, petit collège, beaucoup
d'étudiants
computers / ordinateurs
technology available, software and hardware, lab,
scanning, A/V equipment, les technologies
informatiques
20
counselling / counseling
counselling service, travailleuse sociale à l'école
23
course outlines / plan de cours
distribution du plan de cours, clair, helped to organize
exams and papers
lots of choices, topics that interested me, ability to
choose courses, well-planned, organized, lectures,
intérêt à la matière
easy tests/courses, course materials, textbooks, not too
much homework, light work load, no compulsory
assignments, take-home exams, des projets
intéressants
reduced course load, few courses, allègement de deux
sessions grâce à des cours d'été
les garderies, available
24
didn't like some of my classmates, they cheat, disruptive
classmates, competition, les comportements des autres
étudiants en classe
college pre-registration / service de strange schedule chosen for me, it would be better if
pré-inscription du cégep
students could choose their teachers
overwhelming student population, too many students,
big school, un cégep très grand
technology not available, not accessible, can't use
regular computer lab, heure d'ouverture des locaux
informatique, viruses, no space, not enough, A/V
equipment, manque d'ordinateurs
counselling service, not enough, service de psychologie
inutile
unclear, unhelpful, plans de cours non établis
25
courses / cours
26
courses: difficult / cours: difficiles
27
courses: many / cours: surcharge
28
day-care / service de garde
cours inutiles, did not interest me, had to take because
of profile, unnecessary courses, boring, disorganized, le
surplus de cours de base
difficulty of courses, course materials, textbooks,
exams, lots of writing, hard readings, essays, heavy
work load, daily homework, activités obligatoires dans
les cours
heavy course load, too many courses, nombre de cours
par session
no available day-care, service de garde difficile à trouver
29
electronic portals / portails
électroniques
schedule: assignments, exams /
horaire: travaux, examens
all at the same time, not scheduled properly, le fait que
les examens sont souvent durant la même semaine
courses / cours
courses: easy / cours: faciles
courses: few / cours: charge
réduite
day-care / service de garde
electronic portals / portails
électroniques
schedule: assignments, exams /
horaire: travaux, examens
can use computer to work from home, online
submissions, notes de cours sur l'internet
loose deadlines, scheduled dates of when work was due
family / famille
finances / finances
supportive, encouragement de ma famille
scholarship, parents paid, prêts et bourses, did not have
to work, live with parents; second-hand books, aide
financière de mes parents
21
22
30
31
32
family / famille
finances / finances
course notes on WebCT or other internet sources
unsupportive, raising a child, situation familiale
student loans, no financial aid, costly supplies/books, no
scholarships, having to work, problèmes financiers, le
coût élevé des cours et du matériel
43
Table 6 continued
Facilitators
Obstacles
Code #
One-word Reminder
friends / ami(es)
support, good friends, groupe d'amis brillants et motivés
group work / travail d'équipe
working and studying in a group, étude en équipe
34
group work / travail d'équipe
health / santé
medication for specific conditions, bonne santé
35
health / santé
job / travail
not having a job, working in the CEGEP, horaire flexible
au travail
that some students and teachers were speaking French
was reassuring, facilité en français
36
job / travail
37
language / langue
peer tutoring, someone to check over my grammar,
tutorials, service le tandem
good library & internet facilities, electronic database,
resources, librarians, bibliothèque adaptée aux travaux
en équipe
personal situation / vie personnelle being a calm person, I am very adaptable, maturity, être
plus âgés et avoir de l'expérience
38
learning centre, tutor / centre
d'apprentissage, tuteur
library / bibliothèque
program / programme
good, interesting, closeness of students and faculty,
stage, internship, intérêt marqué pour mon programme
d'étude
computerized & phone registration and grade checking,
Omnivox
41
42
registrariat / registrariat
schedule / horaire
ability to have courses according to one's preferred
schedule, breaks to study, horaire flexible
43
schedule / horaire
staff / personnel
helpful, supportive, nice staff, attitude du personnel nonenseignant
student union, workshops, mentoring, welcoming
program, l'association étudiante
French student centre, science study rooms, math and
physics tutorial rooms, extra lab time, lab facilities,
centre d'aide en français, laboratoire de photographie
44
staff / personnel
45
student services / services aux
étudiants
study centres / centres d'étude
language / langue
learning centre, tutor / centre
d'apprentissage, tuteur
student services / services aux
étudiants
study skills / habiletés pour les
études
33
39
40
46
47
One-word Reminder
friends / ami(es)
personal situation / vie personnelle personal life/issues, dropping classes, being older,
switching programs, not knowing what to do in the
future, social life, laziness, fatigue, activités personnelles
extérieures
program / programme
hard, loose, uninteresting, stage, internship, programme
très exigent
study skills / habiletés pour les
études
time / temps
studying hard, good skills, being able to stay focused/
concentrated, time management, discipline, rapidité/
facilité d'apprentissage
help I received, services at the Cegep (not specified),
available resources, encadrement
helpful, available, skilled, accommodating my disability,
friendly, office hours, l'empathie des professeurs, la
disponibilité des professeurs
no mention of any other aspect
transition / transition
being more independent, l'autonomie qu'on doit acquérir
transportation / transport
distance to the college, living close to school, Metro
close, le transport privé, le transport adapté
52
other / autres
disability, impairment / incapacité,
handicap
non-categorized items, wastebasket
diagnosis of disability, diagnostique de dyslexie
53
54
stress / stress
I work better under pressure, stress coping skills, there
is less stress to perform well than in high school
I ask for help, I go talk to teachers for accommodations,
poser beaucoup de questions
background, previous degree/diploma, my high school
prepared me well for Cegep, expériences scolaires
antérieures
55
personal goals, career goals, interest (not specified),
self-determination, I like what I'm studying, love of
school, passion (unspecified), persérvérance, volonté
outside medical services, orthophony, off-campus tutor,
travailleuse sociale, l'aide à l'extérieur du cégep
I'm intelligent, my brain, I'm smarter than the others,
mon abilité en art
expertise available, knowledgeable service providers,
l’expérience du répondant dans le domaine de
l’éducation
sensitize students, organise seminars, invite experts,
involve staff, promote the rights of students with
disabilities, awareness, integration, aviser et informer les
enseignants
room size/location, desks, chairs, lighting, temperature,
ventilation, nombre suffisant de bureaux dans les
classes
career possibilities/options, job market, possibilité
d'emploi
58
motivation / motivation
59
outside services / services à
l'extérieur du cégep
self-confidence / confiance en soi
support, help / soutien, aide
teachers / enseignants
self-advocacy / revendication
personnelle
academic preparation, background
/ expérience, préparation
académique antérieure
outside services / services à
l'extérieur du cégep
expertise: disabilities / expertise:
incapacités
sensitization and information:
disabilities / sensibilisation et
information: incapacités
classrooms / locaux des cours
career opportunities / opportunités
de carrière
evaluation / évaluation
distracting, easy to skip classes because friends
available, unsupportive, l'influence des amis
working in groups is something that I hate, beaucoup de
travaux d'équipe
état de santé, pain, missing class because of medical
condition, depression, troubles alimentaires,
hospitalisations, medication
paid/unpaid work, balancing school and work, travailler
en même temps
ESL or LD language difficulties, heavy accent, bad
English of teachers, my English is not good, language
barrier, I'm not fluently bilingual, mon mauvais français
écrit
no tutor, manque de tutorat, pas assez d'aide avec
devoirs
not open long enough, old books, stuffy, manque de
places à la bibliothèque
long lines, course change procedure, school lost my
address, course selection process, program change
procedure, devoir payer pour changer nos horaires
early classes, no time between classes, long classes,
back-to back 3 hour classes, horaire chargé, pause de 4
heures, cours de 16h à 18h
not supportive, unfriendly, unorganized, difficulté joindre
les personnes ressources
orientation was confusing
laboratoires de pratique disponible surtout le soir, not
enough studio time
procrastination, not studying hard, lack of concentration,
bad time management, gestion de mes travaux,
organisation
lack of support/help/resources, manque de ressources
48
49
50
time / temps
51
transition form high school, away from home, adapting,
éloignement de ma famille
long commute, winter travel, travel to the country every
weekend, long distance, unreliable adaptive transport,
temps perdu dans les transports en commun
other / autres
non-categorized items, wastebasket
disability, impairment / incapacité, trouble working with disorder, mon trouble
handicap
d'apprentissage, dealing with my panic attacks and
agoraphobia
stress / stress
pressure, anxiety, fear of exams, le stress des fin de
session
self-advocacy / revendication
I'm too shy to ask for help, always have to fight your own
personnelle
battles, me battre pour avoir mes droits
academic preparation, background did not have background, my high school did not
prepare me for Cegep, bad high school habits, manque
/ expérience, préparation
de préparation au secondaire
56
57
60
61
expertise: disabilities / expertise:
incapacités
62
sensitization and information:
disabilities / sensibilisation et
63
64
career opportunities / opportunités
de carrière
65
difficult, lack skills, not accommodating disabilities, don't
show up for office hours, unfair, certains professeurs
incompétents
not enough, limited, doing too much, manque de temps
lack of motivation, lack of interest (not specified), la
démotivation
I didn't have my psychiatrist, orthophony
mon orgueil
lack of expertise because far from urban area,
inexperierenced service providers, manque de
connaissance sur les incapacités
lack of awareness/information/sensitization/ integration,
marginalisation, manque de valorisation
room size/location, desks, chairs, lighting, temperature,
ventilation, l'odeur et renfermé locaux classes nature
science
lack of opportunities, no contact with professionals in
field, pas de déboucher dans le domaine
CRC, compulsory examinations, OSCE, exit exams
44
Table 7 shows the coding guidelines that were followed.
Table 7
Coding Guidelines
1.
Base your coding on the actual response without drawing inferences regarding what the participant "really meant." If
they didn't explicitly say it, we can't code it.
2. If a response fits into more than one category, use the most specific category without going beyond the actual response.
For example, for the response, "The staff in the Center for Students with Disabilities was very helpful," categories 48,
44, and 6 all fit. However, category 6 is the most specific and should be used in this case.
3. Use the most up-to-date version of the coding manual, as it will reflect decisions made during reliability meetings.
4. Be as consistent as possible with your coding, even if this means double checking your coding or the manual before
deciding on a code. The extra time and attention to detail is worth it!
5. When coding facilitators and obstacles, don't automatically code a factor as an accommodation unless it is evident that
this is a disability related accommodation. For example, if the student simply lists "pre-registration" as a facilitator, use
code 20 unless there is evidence that the student was taking advantage of a pre-registration for students with disabilities
specifically at his/her college (i.e., they mention other accommodations they receive).
6. If the response mentions a cause and its effect, code the cause. For example, for "Lack of time stressed me out," code
50 instead of 55 because the lack of time is the cause of the stress.
7. Use code 65 for assessment/evaluation methods outside the course (i.e., at the college, provincial or national level).
Fairness/unfairness of marking should be coded as 49, because marking is done by the teacher. Ease/difficulty of
exams/assignments should be coded as 26, because they are related to course difficulty.
8. When more specific examples are given in parentheses, code the first example given in parentheses instead of the more
general factor preceding the parentheses.
9. Reliability checks should be done on 20 subjects out of every 100. If the inter-rater agreement does not reach at least
70%, all 100 responses must be recoded by both coders and any disagreement must be discussed until an agreement is
reached.
Guidelines for the coding of recommendations for changes are presented in Table 8. The coding manual is included in Table
9.
Table 8
Guidelines For The Coding Of Recommendations For Changes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In general, the same guidelines that applied to the coding of facilitators and obstacles apply to the coding of the changes
as well.
If the direction of the change is ambiguous or unclear from the response (e.g., "teachers"), then don't code it.
If a response starts off by stating that no changes are needed, but then goes on to suggest one or more changes, ignore
the first statement (i.e. don't code 39) and code only the recommendations.
If the response reads "I didn't have any problems," "I have no idea/I don't know," or "It doesn't apply to me," don’t code
it. Only if it reads, "I don't think anything has to be changed" should 39 be coded.
If a response refers back to a previous response (i.e., obstacles), do not go back to read the response. Simply, do not
code such responses, as doing so would involve inferring what solutions could be suggested to the previously stated
obstacles.
45
Table 9
Recommendations For Changes Coding Manual
Code
1
2
3
4
One-word Reminder
more government support
more outside services
improve transportation
improve college system
Description
plus de prêts et bourses, recognize LD, abolir la côte R
ressources de l’extérieur
adapted or not
better administration, budget management, lower costs, not require attendance, meilleure évaluation
des professeurs, établir des mesures d’urgence, Co-op, more time to study before exam period,
cheaper parking, exams/assignments not scheduled close together, uniformity of teaching/standards
across courses, coordination between core and program specific courses
5
6
7
more funding: college
larger college size
improve college environment: physical
8
improve college environment: social
9
improve accessibility: building
10
11
more collaboration/communication
improve support/help: general
12
improve academic advising
13
14
more counselling services
improve study centers
15
16
17
18
improve library
more tutoring
more technology
improve services for students with
disabilities
19
more sensitization/information: disabilities
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
more expertise: disabilities
more accommodations: human
more accommodations: technological
more accommodations: room/facilities
more accommodations: time
improve program
better schedule
27
more accessibility: course
28
improve courses: general
money to update and upgrade the equipment, more funding for services
agrandir le cégep
plus grande cafétéria, plus de salles de travail d'équipe, renouveler le matériel et en acheter du
nouveau, smaller/larger classrooms, more residences, more parking, more microwaves, more
telephones, plus de locaux disponibles
connaître des gens qui vivent les mêmes difficulté, more student association organized activities,
promotion des activités socioculturelles du cégep, clubs, parties, sports
more ramps/escalators/railings/electric doors, longer building hours, adapted bathrooms, shuttles,
gym hours
between students/teachers/staff/service providers (any combination)
meilleur encadrement, workshops on time management/study skills, daycare, more help with school
work (unspecified source), more information
cheminement plus personalisé, meilleur guide pour études universitaires, meilleure gestion de l'aide
pédagogique individuelle
psychologists, increase maximum number of psychologist visits
plus de matériel au laboratoire de langues, avoir plus de locaux pour les laboratoires pratiques
disponible dans la journée
noise level, more books, more space
Learning Centre, more tutors, Tandem
more computers, extend computer lab hours, update technology, A/V, more technicians
more advertising of services, improve training for service providers, accès à un programme qui
pourrait aider ceux qui ont des problèmes de santé mentale, more staff, a permanent full-time
service provider for students with disabilities
more awareness, improve integration, faire de la sensibilisation auprès des élèves et des
professeurs
more expertise on LD, more knowledgeable service provider
note taker, interpreter, hire professionals and not students
subtitles, Braille, software, computer for exams
room for exam, study rooms
more time for exams/assignments, complete course over two semester instead of one
introduce entrance exams, stable groups, more/longer stages
be able to make my own, no late/early classes, meilleure répartition des cours, moins nombre
d'heures de cours
teachers give students the notes so they can follow and listen at the same time, should have course
websites
course content, subject, eliminate useless courses, rendre le contenu plus pratique que théorique,
cours plus interactifs, more course selection, more time to do assignments in class, ponderation
29
courses: easier
30
31
32
33
courses: fewer
better teachers
smaller class size
more career opportunities/guidance
34
more funding: student
35
improve study skills
36
37
38
39
40
more self-advocacy
facilitate balancing job and school
more support from family/friends
no changes needed / all is good
other change
less work, simplified tests, two-part exams, less writing essays, rely less on textbooks, plus de
travaux pratiques, less group work, abaisser les critères de français, more course materials, more
course notes/materials
diminuer la charge des cours
more supportive/understanding/available/competent/specialized
fewer students
offrir des ateliers sur les perspectives d'emploi, visite avec différents employeurs, career counsellors
aide financière aurait pu me permettre de déménager de chez mes parents et de m'installer à
Montréal
améliorer mon français, étudier souvent au laboratoire et aussi prendre beaucoup de travaux
pratiques
going to the library at the resource or tutor area
offrir davantage de programme travail-étude
from what I've seen they seem to be doing a very good job, aucun, rien
46
Disability service providers. All 57 participants answered the following 3 questions
•
•
•
At your Cegep, what are the 3 most important factors that make Cegep studies easier for students with disabilities?
At your Cegep, what are the 3 most important factors that make Cegep studies harder for students with disabilities?
At your Cegep, what could be changed to make Cegep studies easier for students with disabilities?
Current students registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep. 297 of the 300 participants in this
category answered the open-ended questions. It should be noted, however, that the Change question was phrased slightly
differently on the English and French questionnaires, with the French questionnaires asking about "making Cegep studies
easier for you" and the English questionnaires asking about "making Cegep studies easier for students with disabilities."
Because of the difference in wording, we analyzed the Change questions separately for participants who responded on the
English and on the French questionnaires.
•
•
•
What are the 3 most important factors that have made your Cegep studies easier?
What are the 3 most important factors that have made your Cegep studies harder?
At your Cegep, what could be changed to make Cegep studies easier for you? (French questionnaire)
At your Cegep, what could be changed to make Cegep studies easier for students with disabilities? (English
questionnaire)
Graduates. 1417 of the 1486 participants in this category answered the open-ended questions. It should be noted, however,
that as in the case of current students, the Change question was phrased slightly differently on the English and French
questionnaires, with the French questionnaires asking about "making Cegep studies easier for you" and the English
questionnaires asking about "making Cegep studies easier for students with disabilities." Because of the difference in
wording, we did not analyze the Change question for nondisabled graduates who completed the English questionnaire and
we analyzed the Change questions separately for participants with disabilities who responded on the English and on the
French questionnaires.
•
•
•
What are the 3 most important factors that have made your Cegep studies easier?
What are the 3 most important factors that have made your Cegep studies harder?
At your Cegep, what could be changed to make Cegep studies easier for you? (French questionnaire)
At your Cegep, what could be changed to make Cegep studies easier for students with disabilities? (English
questionnaire)
47
Results
Sample Characteristics
Campus based disability service providers. 24 campus based disability service providers were men and 33 were women.
Disability service providers had worked a mean of 7 years providing services to students with disabilities (median = 5 years,
range = 0.2-20 years). This activity constituted an average of 20% of their workload (median = 11%, range = 1%-100%).
Results in Table 10 show that more than ¾ of the disability service providers had provided services to students with learning
disabilities / ADD, a mobility impairment and a hearing impairment. Relatively few, however, less than ½, had provided
services to students with psychological / psychiatric disabilities, medically related conditions, or a speech / communication
impairment.
Table 10
Types Of Students Ever Serviced By The Service Providers In The Sample In Rank Order
Student's Disability /Impairment
Percent
Learning disability / ADD (e.g., dyslexia)
Mobility impairment (e.g., use of a wheelchair / cane / crutches)
Hearing impairment
Visual impairment
Neurological impairment (e.g., epilepsy, traumatic brain injury)
Limitation in the use of hands / arms
PDD (e.g., autism, Asperger’s)
Blindness
Deafness
Psychological / psychiatric disability (e.g., anxiety, depression)
Medically related / health problem (e.g., diabetes, Crohn’s)
Speech / communication impairment
80.70%
80.70%
78.95%
73.68%
66.67%
56.14%
52.63%
50.88%
50.88%
45.61%
40.35%
36.84%
Current students with disabilities. The mean age of students was 21 (standard deviation = 5, minimum = 17, maximum =
50, median = 20). It can be seen in Table 11 that that by far the largest number of students, over 90%, were enrolled in a
diploma program with approximately ½ of them enrolled in a pre-university program and the other half in a career/technical
program. Approximately 6% were enrolled in an attestation program (AEC) or in another course of studies.
Table 11
College Programs of the Current Student Sample
Program
Pre-university
Career / Technical
AEC
Other (e.g., continuing education)
Total
Number
%
140
141
5
14
300
46.67%
47.00%
1.67%
4.67%
100%
Students had a variety of impairments. It can be seen in Table 12 that the most common impairment/disability was a
learning disability/attention deficit disorder, followed by mobility impairment, hearing impairment, medically related
disability, and psychological disability.
48
Table 12
Current Students' Impairments
Type of Impairment
Learning disability / ADD
Mobility impairment
Hearing impairment
Medically related condition
Psychological disability
Limitation in the use of hands / arms
Visual impairment
Neurological impairment
Deafness
Speech / language impairment
PDD (pervasive developmental disorder - e.g., autism, Asperger’s)
Blindness
Total number of impairments reported by the 300 students
Number of Students
142
53
39
33
32
30
29
25
17
16
11
2
429
% of Students
47%
18%
13%
11%
11%
10%
10%
8%
6%
5%
4%
1%
n = 300
It is noteworthy that over 30% of students with disabilities had more than one impairment, with 9% having 3 or more
impairments (see Table 13).
Table 13
Number of Impairments of Current Students
Number of Impairments
Number of Students
% of Students
1
2
3
4+
210
62
20
8
300
70%
21%
7%
3%
100%
Total
49
Graduates. Of the 1486 graduates responding to the survey, 182 (12.2%) reported a disability. Of the graduates with a
disability 24 (13.2%) had registered with their Cegep disability service provider and 158 (86.8%) were unregistered. The
remaining 1304 graduates reported no disability.
It can be seen in Table 14 that approximately half of the graduates with and without disabilities were enrolled in a preuniversity program and half in a career/technical program. Overall, 57.0% of the graduates were enrolled in pre-university
programs, 42.4% in career/technical programs and the remainder in some other form of study. There was no significant
difference between the proportion of graduates in pre-university and career/technical programs when graduates with and
without disabilities were compared, χ2 (1, N = 1473) = 2.85, p = 0.091.
Table 14
Program Breakdown Of Graduates With And Without Disabilities
Program
With A Disability
No Disability
Total
Pre-University
91
(50.6%)
753
(57.8%)
844
(57.0%)
Career/Technical
86
(47.8%)
543
(41.7%)
629
(42.4%)
Other
3
(1.7%)
6
(0.5%)
9
(0.6%)
1302
180
*Total
*4 graduates did not reply to the diploma type question.
1482
We also examined the sector of enrollment of graduates with disabilities who had, and those who had not registered for
disability related services from their Cegep. Figure 1 shows that similar proportions of all three groups of graduates were
enrolled in pre-university and in career/technical programs.
Figure 1
Graduates' Programs
With a disability registered
100%
89.2%
90%
86.3%
80%
With a disability-not
registered
70%
60%
50%
Nondisabled
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
9.4%
1.4%
Pre-University
11.9%
1.7%
Career/Technical
50
Graduates had a variety of impairments. One hundred and eighty-two graduates reported a total of 212 disabilities. The
distribution of disability types for graduates who registered with their Cegep to receive disability related services and those
who did not is shown in Table 15 below.
Table 15
Types of Disabilities Reported by Registered and Unregistered Graduates
Disabilities / Impairments
Total
Unregistered
Registered
Number Of
Graduates
(N=24)
Percent In
Disability
Category
Number Of
Graduates
(N=158)
Percent In
Disability
Category
Number Of
Graduates
(N=182)
Percent In
Disability
Category
Blind
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Visual Impairment
0
0.0%
57
31.3%
57
26.9%
Deaf
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
2
0.9%
Hearing Impairment
2
6.7%
6
3.3%
8
3.8%
Speech/Communication impairment
1
3.3%
1
0.5%
2
0.9%
Learning Disability
10
33.3%
15
8.2%
25
11.8%
Mobility Impairment
5
16.7%
2
1.1%
7
3.3%
Limitation use of hands
3
10.0%
0
0.0%
3
1.4%
Medically Related
4
13.3%
46
25.3%
50
23.6%
Psychological
3
10.0%
46
25.3%
49
23.1%
Neurological
0
0.0%
2
1.1%
2
0.9%
PDD
0
0.0%
2
1.1%
2
0.9%
Other
0
0.0%
5
2.7%
5
2.4%
30
100%
182
100%
212
100%
Number of disabilities reported
51
To find out whether there was a significant difference in the distribution of disabilities between registered and unregistered
graduates we conducted a chi-square test. Graduates' disabilities were grouped into seven disability categories to ensure that
there were sufficient numbers in each category to perform a valid test. Table 16 shows the categories of disability used in
the analysis.
Table 16
Grouping Graduates With Disabilities Into 7 Combined Disability Categories
Combined Disability Categories
Registered
1
Learning disability/ADD
2
Medical impairment
3
Psychological impairment
4
Visual impairment and blindness
5
Hearing impairment and Deafness
6
Multiple disabilities
7
Other (includes pervasive developmental disabilities, mobility
impairment, limitation in use of hands or arms, neurological
impairment, speech/communication impairment)
Total with disabilities
Unregistered
8
33.3%
2
8.3%
2
8.3%
0
0.0%
4
16.7%
5
20.8%
3
12.5%
10
6.3%
31
19.6%
39
24.7%
47
29.7%
5
3.2%
19
12.0%
7
4.4%
24
100%
158
100%
Total
18
9.9%
33
18.1%
41
22.5%
47
25.8%
9
4.9%
24
13.2%
10
5.5%
182
100%
A chi-square test showed that there was a significant difference in the distribution of disabilities between registered and
unregistered graduates, χ2 (6, N = 182) = 37.81, p < 0.001. From Table 16 it can be seen that none of the registered
graduates reported a visual impairment and that registered graduates were more likely to have a learning disability, a
hearing impairment and multiple disabilities while unregistered graduates were more likely to have a visual, psychological
or medical disability. The distribution of the numbers of disabilities reported by both groups is shown in Table 17 below.
Table 17
Numbers of Disabilities Reported by Registered and Unregistered Graduates With Disabilities
Registered
Number of Disabilities
Not Registered
Total
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
One
19
79.2%
139
88.0%
158
86.8%
Two
4
16.7%
16
10.1%
20
11.0%
Three
1
4.2%
1
0.6%
2
1.1%
Four
0
0.0%
2
1.3%
2
1.1%
Total
24
100%
158
100%
182
100.0%
Graduates with more than one disability
5
20.8%
19
12.0%
24
13.2%
52
Enrollment: Proportion Of Students / Graduates Registered To Receive Disability Related Services
We obtained statistics about the number of students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services from the
Cegep from 44 of the public Cegeps. This includes the 2 Cegeps that indicated that they currently had no students with
disabilities. The question disability service providers were asked was, "Since the beginning of the 2004-2005 academic
year, approximately how many students identified themselves to receive disability related services at your Cegep?" We also
obtained "official figures" for the fall of 2004 provided by the 3 "centres d'accueil:" by the Service d'Aide à l'Intégration
Des Élèves (SAIDE) at Cégep du Vieux Montréal (Fiset, 2004), by les Services adaptés du Cégep de Sainte-Foy (Juhel,
2004), and by Alice Havel of Dawson College (personal communication, 2005). These official figures represent the number
of students for whom an individualized education plan (IIP) had been submitted and approved by the MELS and, thus, for
whom disability related services were funded. To obtain total college enrollment statistics we consulted the web site of the
MELS, which provides full time enrollment data for 2004 (Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2005a).
The data indicate that there were great discrepancies among Cegeps in the percentage of students with disabilities (range 0% to
3.34%). Summary data on student enrollments at participants' institutions and percentages of students with disabilities
registered to receive disability related services, based on the 2 data sources (i.e., full time enrollments available for 2004 on
the web site of the Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (2005a) and the Cegep based disability service providers)
are available in Table 18. Overall, the findings show that the average total full time enrolment at the 44 participating Cegeps
for 2004 was approximately 2906 (standard deviation = 1842, range = 559 to 7237). Information concerning the number of
students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services according to the disability service providers show that
the mean was 24 students per Cegep (median = 12, standard deviation = 19, range = 0 to 238). The mean percentage of students
with disabilities registered to receive disability related services in a Cegep was 0.84% (i.e., approximately ¾ of 1%).
Table 18
Enrollment Data For 2004
44/48 Cegeps Were
Reached
Total N
Total Enrollment
At The 44 Cegeps
Number Of Students Registered For
Disability Related Services
(Fall 2004)
Number With Individualized
Education Plans (PII)
127 870
1069
% of 127 870 = (0.84%)
391
% of 127 870 = (0.31%)
% of 1 069 = (37%)
It can be seen in Table 18 that of the 1069 students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services from
their Cegep, only 391 had individualized education plans approved by the MELS (i.e., the Cegeps were funded for only 391
students - only 37% of those registered to receive services). The average number of students with disabilities for whom
funding was provided by the MELS was 9 per Cegep (median = 5 per Cegep). Thus funding was provided by the MELS for
only about a third of students who registered for services.
53
Changes from 1999 to 2004. To examine changes in the proportion of students with disabilities registered to receive
services from their Cegep we compared the current data with data obtained in 1999, when we also asked disability service
providers about the number of students registered to receive services (Fichten, Barile, Robillard, Fossey, Asuncion,
Généreux, Judd, & Guimont, 2000). Numbers were available for 1999 and 2004 from the same 31 colleges: 27 French and 4
English Cegeps. Results of the comparison, presented in Table 19, show that there was some increase in the proportion of
students with disabilities registered for disability related services (change from 0.75% to 0.94%). There was also a change
in the proportion of students registered for disability related services from their Cegep for whom the MELS provided
funding (from 32% to 36%). However, neither the comparison on the proportion of the student body that is registered to
receive services, t(30) = .357, p=.724, or on the proportion of students registered to receive disability related services for
whom the Cegep is funded by the MELS, t(28) = .966, p = .342, were significant. The proportion of the full time student
body funded for disability related services by the MELS increased from 0.24% of the total full time student population to
0.34%; this is a significant change from 1999 to 2004, t(29) = 3.21, p = .003. This was a result of an increase in the number
of students with disabilities who have an Individualized Educating Plan (IIP) coupled with a decline in overall Cegep
enrollments.
Table 19
Number Of Cegep Students Registered For Disability Related Services At Their Cegep
Year
Total Enrollment
at the Same
31 Cegeps
Number of Students
Registered for Services
Number with
Individualized Education
Plans (PII)
1999
105 153
787
% of 105 153 = (0.75%)
252
% of 105 153 = (0.24%)
% of
787 = (32%)
2004
100 369
940
% of 100 369 = (0.94%)
343
% of 100 369 = (0.34%)
% of
940 = (36%)
54
Open-Ended Data About Facilitators, Obstacles, And Things To Change
Current students with disabilities. It should be noted that students with different impairments may require either similar
accommodations (e.g., extended time for exams) or disability specific accommodations (e.g., a sign language interpreter).
Therefore, the percentage of responses that deal with accommodations in Figure 2 should be interpreted in this light. To
provide perspective, we also calculated the number of participants who noted any type of disability related accommodation
in response to both the facilitator and obstacle questions.
Facilitators. Results detailed in Figure 2 show that most students with disabilities indicated that disability related
accommodations were among the most frequently noted facilitators. Indeed, 171 of the 297 current students who answered
the open ended questions (i.e., 58%) noted at least 1 disability related accommodation as a facilitator.
Figure 2
Facilitators: Current Students with Disabilities vs. Service Providers
37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Current Students with Disabilities (n=297)
37%
22%
Code
accommodations : note taker / adaptations: preneur de notes
accommodations: services for students with disabilities /
adaptations : centre pour étudiants ayant des besoins spéciaux
accomodations: time / adaptations: temps
learning center, tutor / centre d'apprentissage, tuteur
friends / ami(es)
cegep environment / environnement du cégep
schedule / horaire
accomodations / adaptations
accessibility: building / accessibilité : édifice
study skills / habiletés pour les études
accomodations: interpreter/ adaptations/ interprète
family / famille
sensitization and information: disabilities / sensibilisation et
finances / finances
courses: few / cours : charge réduite
personal situation / vie personnelle
accomodations: pre-registration / adaptations: pré-inscription
courses / cours
accomodations: exam room / adaptations: local d'examens
other / autres
outside services / services à l'extérieur du cégep
academic advising / aide pédagogique
program / programme
staff / personnel
student services / services aux étudiants
accessibility: course / accessibilité: cours
accomodations : large print / adaptations: impression en gros
college pre-registration / service de pré-inscription du cégep
self-advocacy / revendication personnelle
accomodations: FM system / adaptations: système MF
academic preparation, background / expérience, préparation
accomodations: books / adaptations: livres
job / travail
disability, impairment / incapacité, handicap
classes small / classes petit groupe
expertise: disabilities / expertise: incapacités
18%
16%
16%
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Service Providers (n=57)
49
12
46%
5%
6
15
38
22
48
33
58
17
43
4
2
47
10
31
35%
7%
4%
11%
12%
0%
5%
14%
0%
12%
12%
4%
4%
0%
62
32
27
40
7
25
23
8
46
53
59
1
52
41
44
45
3
11
20
19
56
9
26
57
5
36
39
51
54
60
16
21
18
61
18%
2%
2%
5%
7%
0%
4%
0%
0%
4%
2%
4%
2%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18%
2%
16%
Note. Percentages refer to percent of participants who said this.
55
We decided that "important facilitators" were those that were noted by at least 5% of the participants who completed openended questions (i.e., at least 15 of the 297 participants). Important facilitators for students include: services for students
with disabilities in general and specific disability related accommodations such as having a note taker or interpreter in class,
extended time for exams and assignments, an accessible building, as well as Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport
and college policies which permit students with disabilities to take a reduced number of courses and still be considered "full
time students." Sensitization and information about disabilities was also seen as a facilitator.
Approximately half of the important facilitators are not specifically disability related but are issues of concern to all
students. These include: good teachers (this ranks in first place), the Cegep environment, tutors and learning centers (which
assist with studying, writing, and exam taking skills and provide tutoring), the availability of computers and of support and
help. Other factors that students indicated made their studies easier are the facilitating role of: friends and family, having a
good schedule, students' financial situation, motivation and good study skills. These facilitators are best seen in Table 20
below, where items common to all students are boxed.
Table 20
Important Facilitators For Current Students with Disabilities In Rank Order
teachers: good
accommodations: note taker
accommodations: services for students with disabilities
accommodations: time
learning center, tutor
computers
support, help
friends
motivation
schedule: good
Cegep environment
accommodations: in general
study skills: good
accessibility: building
family
accommodations: interpreter
finances
sensitization and information: disabilities
courses: few
37%
22%
18%
16%
16%
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
Note. Common items to all students are boxed. Important facilitators
are those that were noted by at least 15 of the 297 participants who
completed open-ended questions (i.e., at least 5%).
56
Obstacles. The obstacles noted by current students with disabilities are detailed in Figure 3. Important obstacles are those
that were noted by at least 15 of the 297 participants (i.e., at least 5%). This includes only one item that is disability
specific: poor health. Indeed, when we collapsed all of the disability related items, results indicate that only 10 of the 297
participants (i.e., 3%) noted at least 1 disability related accommodation as an obstacle.
Figure 3
Obstacles: Current Students with Disabilities vs. Service Providers
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Current Students with Disabilities (n=297)
25%
22%
15%
13%
12%
11%
11%
11%
10%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Code
courses / cours
schedule / horaire
job / travail
Cegep environment / environnement du cégep
finances / finances
courses: many / cours : surcharge
schedule: assignments, exams / horaire: travaux examens
program / programme
health / santé
time / temps
other / autres
stress / stress
language / langue
family / famille
group-work / travail d'équipe
classes big / classes grand groupe
friends / ami(es)
accommodations: interpreter/ adaptations/ interprète
accommodations: exam room / adaptations: local d'examens
career opportunities / opportunités de carrière
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
49
26
25
43
36
40
52
17
32
22
27
30
47
51
41
35
50
58
53
55
54
37
2
3
21
31
34
63
18
19
48
39
9%
7%
2%
7%
0%
5%
7%
18%
14%
5%
0%
0%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
0%
18%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
62
30%
6
33
38
37%
0%
0%
57
4
42
65
10
1
8
56
61
12
64
2%
4%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
12%
14%
2%
4%
Note. Parentages refer to percent of participants who said this.
57
Other "important obstacles," shown in Table 21, include: bad teachers, hard courses, poor schedules, having to hold a job,
students' personal situations in general, the Cegep environment, transportation issues, students' finances, lack of availability
of computers, too many courses, poor study skills, bad exam and assignment schedules, transition related issues, demanding
and boring programs, poor motivation, and insufficient time.
Table 21
Important Obstacles For Current Students With Disabilities In Rank Order of Popularity
teachers: bad
25%
courses: hard
22%
courses in general
15%
schedule: bad
13%
job
12%
personal situation bad
11%
Cegep environment
11%
transportation
11%
finances
10%
computers
8%
courses: too many
8%
study skills: poor
7%
schedule: assignments, exams (bad)
7%
transition
6%
program
6%
motivation
health: poor
5%
5%
time: insufficient
5%
Note. Common items to all students are boxed. Important obstacles
are those that were noted by at least 15 of the 297 participants who
completed open-ended questions (i.e., at least 5%).
58
Disability service providers. Scores of campus based disability service providers are also presented in Figures 2 and 3.
Facilitators. Results detailed in Figure 2 show that most campus based disability service providers also indicated that
disability related accommodations were among the most important facilitators. This is particularly evident when we
collapsed the data across all disability related accommodations: the findings show that 31 of the 57 campus based disability
service providers (i.e., 54%) noted at least 1 disability related accommodation as a facilitator.
Important facilitators are those that were noted by at least 3 of the 57 participants (i.e., at least 5%). These include: services for
students with disabilities in general and specific disability related accommodations such as having a note taker or interpreter in
class, extended time for exams and assignments, good building accessibility, and the possibility of early pre-registration for
students with disabilities. Sensitization / providing information about disabilities was also seen as an important facilitator. In
addition, the campus based disability service provider's expertise and students' self-advocacy skills were also seen as
important.
Approximately half of the important facilitators are not specifically disability related. These include: good teachers (this
ranks in first place) the Cegep's small size and its overall environment, the availability of computers, counsellors, academic
advising, support and help, helpful college staff, and the availability of tutors and learning centers (which assist with
studying, writing, and exam taking skills and provide tutoring). Other factors that campus based disability service providers
indicated made students' college studies easier are the facilitating role of: the student's classmates as well as students'
motivation, study skills, and overall personal situation. These relationships are best seen in Table 22 below, where items
common to all students are boxed.
Table 22
Important Facilitators For Campus Based Disability Service Providers In Rank Order of Popularity
teachers
46%
35%
18%
college size
expertise: disabilities
Cegep environment
18%
16%
14%
support, help
accommodations: general
12%
12%
12%
computers
accommodations: pre-registration
accommodations : note taker
motivation
11%
7%
7%
5%
5%
personal situation
5%
staff
5%
Note. Common items to both groups are boxed. Important facilitators are those
that were noted by at least 3 of the 57 participants (i.e., at least 5%).
59
Obstacles. The obstacles noted by campus based disability service providers are detailed in Figure 3. Services for students
with disabilities on campus ranked at the top of the list. In fact, the lack of available accommodations and/or poor
accommodations were seen as impediments to student success. This is particularly evident when we collapsed the data
across all disability related accommodations: the findings show that 24 of the 57 campus based disability service providers
(i.e., 42%) noted at least 1 disability related accommodation as an obstacle.
Important obstacles are those that were noted by at least 3 of the 57 participants (i.e., at least 5%). Approximately ⅓ of
these items are disability specific: the absence of appropriate services for students with disabilities, lack of sensitization and
information dissemination on campus about disabilities, inaccessible buildings, lack of expertise of the part of the service
provider about disabilities, and poor self-advocacy skills of students. Other important obstacles, shown in Table 23, include:
bad teachers, hard courses, poor schedules, students' personal situations in general, the Cegep environment, transportation
issues, the students' finances, and lack of availability of computers.
Table 23
Important Obstacles For Campus Based Disability Service Providers In Rank Order From Most to Least Important
37%
30%
Cegep environment
18%
18%
finances
self-advocacy
teachers
14%
14%
12%
9%
courses: difficult
7%
schedule
7%
transportation
7%
personal situation
5%
computers
5%
Note. Common items to both groups are boxed. Important facilitators are those that
were noted by at least 3 of the 57 participants (i.e., at least 5%).
60
Comparing the views of students with disabilities and disability service providers. Table 24 provides a listing of
facilitators and obstacles noted by at least 5% of students with disabilities and 5% of campus based disability service
provider participants.
Facilitators. It can be seen in Table 24 that most important facilitators noted by students with disabilities were also noted by
campus based disability service providers. Exceptions are as follows. Students noted that important facilitators for them
were: friends, their schedule, their family, finances, and the possibility of taking fewer courses than is typical. Campus
based disability service providers, on the other hand, indicated that a small college, the service provider being
knowledgeable about disabilities, pre-registration for courses before other students register, helpful staff and classmates,
and the availability of good counselling and academic advising for students were important facilitators, as were the student's
personal situation and self-advocacy skills.
Obstacles. Table 24 also shows that most obstacles noted by campus based disability service providers were also noted by
students with disabilities. A notable exception relates to disability related accommodations, which 42% of disability service
providers saw as an obstacle, while Figure 3 shows that only 2% of students with disabilities did so. Other exceptions are as
follows. Service providers noted that important obstacles included poor or few accommodations and services for students
with disabilities, lack of information and sensitization about disabilities, disability service providers not having adequate
knowledge about disabilities and accommodations, the building’s accessibility and students' poor self-advocacy skills.
Students noted the following important obstacles that were not mentioned by service providers: too many courses and
problems with their courses and programs of study in general, insufficient time, bad exam and assignment schedules,
transition issues, having to hold a job, and poor motivation, study skills, and health.
Table 24
Commonalities Between Students With Disabilities And Campus Based Disability Service Providers In Rank Order Of Popularity
Facilitators: Students With Disabilities
teachers
accommodations:
services for students with disabilities
computers
support, help
friends
motivation
schedule
Cegep environment
study skills
family
finances
courses: few
Facilitators: Disability Service Providers
37%
22%
18%
16%
16%
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
teachers
accommodations:
46%
college size
Cegep environment
18%
18%
16%
14%
support, help
12%
12%
12%
computers
11%
accommodations: pre-registration
accommodations: note taker
7%
7%
5%
motivation
personal situation
staff
35%
5%
5%
5%
61
Obstacles: Students With Disabilities
Obstacles: Disability Service Providers
teachers
25%
courses: difficult
courses
22%
15%
schedule
job
13%
12%
personal situation
11%
Cegep environment
11%
transportation
11%
finances
10%
computers
courses: too many
study skills
schedule: assignments, exams
transition
program
motivation
health
time
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
accommodations: services for students with disabilities 37%
30%
Cegep environment
18%
18%
finances
self-advocacy
teachers
14%
14%
12%
9%
courses: difficult
schedule
7%
7%
transportation
7%
personal situation
5%
computers
5%
Note. Items noted by both groups are boxed. Important facilitators and obstacles are those that were noted by at least 5%
of participants.
Students' Personal Situation, Cegep Environment, and Government and Community Supports and Services based
Facilitators and Obstacles. We also examined the relative frequencies of current students' and campus based disability
service providers' responses that fell into each of these categories and evaluated the hypothesis that campus based disability
service providers would provide more "personal" (i.e., Student's Personal Situation) comments about both facilitators and
obstacles while students would make relatively more "environmental" comments (i.e., Cegep Environment, Government
and Government and Community Supports and Services). The codes in the three grouping can be seen in Table 25.
62
Table 25
Grouping Obstacles and Facilitators
Group
One-Word Reminder
Code #
Students' Personal Situation
Attendance / présence en classe
Family / famille
Finances / finances
Friends / ami(es)
Health / santé
Job / travail
Language / langue
Personal situation / vie personnelle
Study skills / habiletés pour les études
Time / temps
Transition / transition
Disability, impairment / incapacité, handicap
Stress / stress
Self-advocacy / revendication personnelle
Academic preparation, background / expérience, préparation académique antérieure
Motivation / motivation
Self-confidence / confiance en soi
16
31
32
33
35
36
37
40
47
50
51
54
55
56
57
58
60
Cegep Environemnt
Academic advising / aide pédagogique
Accessibility: building / accessibilité : édifice
Accessibility: course / accessibilité: cours
Accommodations / adaptations
Accommodations: books / adaptations: livres
Accommodations: services for students with disabilities / adaptations: centre pour étudiants ayant
Accommodations: pre-registration / adaptations: pré-inscription
Accommodations: exam room / adaptations: local d'examens
Accommodations: fm system / adaptations: système mf
Accommodations: interpreter/ adaptations/ interprète
Accommodations: large print / adaptations: impression en gros caractères
Accommodations: note taker / adaptations: preneur de notes
Accommodations: taped exams / adaptations: examens enregistrés sur cassette audio
Accommodations: taping / adaptations: enregistrement
Accommodations: time / adaptations: temps
Cegep environment / environnement du cégep
Classes small / classes petit groupe
Classmates / collègues de classe
College pre-registration / service de pré-inscription du cégep
College size / taille du cégep
Computers / ordinateurs
Counselling / counseling
Course outlines / plan de cours
Courses / cours
Courses: easy / cours: faciles
Courses: few / cours: charge réduite
Electronic portals / portails électroniques
Schedule: assignments, exams / horaire: travaux, examens
Group work / travail d'équipe
Learning centre, tutor / centre d'apprentissage, tuteur
Library / bibliothèque
Program / programme
Registrariat / registrariat
Schedule / horaire
Staff / personnel
Student services / services aux étudiants
Study centres / centres d'étude
Support, help / soutien, aide
Teachers / enseignants
Expertise: disabilities / expertise: incapacités
Sensitization and information: disabilities / sensibilisation et information: incapacités
Classrooms / locaux des cours
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
34
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
61
62
63
Government and community supports and services
Day-care / service de garde
Transportation / transport
Outside services / services à l'extérieur du cégep
Career opportunities / opportunités de carrière
Evaluation / évaluation
28
52
59
64
65
63
To test this hypothesis we used chi-square to examine the relative frequencies of Student's Personal Situation and Cegep
Environment codes by students with disabilities and by campus based disability service providers, separately for Facilitators
and Obstacles. We did the same for Student's Personal Situation and Government and Community Supports and Services
frequencies. None of the chi-square tests was significant. It can be seen in Tables 26 and 27 that, not surprisingly, both
students and service providers noted substantially more (approximately ¾) Cegep Environment than Student's Personal
Situation Facilitators and Obstacles. Both groups also noted more (approximately ¾) Student's Personal Situation than
Government and Community Supports and Services facilitators and obstacles.
Table 26
Internal And External Attributions For Facilitators And Obstacles: Frequencies of Student's Personal Situation And Cegep Environment Codes
Facilitators
Disability Service Providers
Students With Disabilities
Obstacles
Student's Personal
Situation
Student's Personal
Situation
Cegep Environment
11 (8%)
129 (92%)
130 (17%)
643 (83%)
Cegep Environment
22 (21%)
84 (79%)
233 (35%)
431 (65%)
Table 27
Internal And External Attributions For Facilitators And Obstacles: Frequencies of Student's Personal Situation And Government and Government and Community
Supports and Services
Facilitators
Student's Personal
Situation
Obstacles
Government and
Government and
Community Supports
and Services
11 (85%)
2 (15%)
130 (80%)
33 (20%)
Student's Personal
Situation
Government and
Government and
Community Supports and
Services
22 (79%)
6 (21%)
233 (81%)
55 (19%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
_
We also compared the relative frequencies of Facilitators and Obstacles in each of the Student's Personal Situation, Cegep
Environment, and Government and Community Supports and Services categories of students with disabilities and service
providers. None of the chi-square tests was significant. The frequencies in Table 28 show that both students and service
providers indicated substantially more (approximately ⅔) Cegep Environment based Facilitators than Obstacles and that
they indicated more (approximately ⅔) Student's Personal Situation and Government and Community Supports and
Services Obstacles than Facilitators.
Table 28
Facilitators And Obstacles: Frequencies In The Student's Personal Situation, Cegep Environment,
And Government And Community Supports And Services Categories
Student's Personal Situation
Facilitators
Obstacles
11 (33%)
22 (67%)
130 (36%)
233 (64%)
Cegep Environment
Facilitators
Obstacles
129 (61%)
84 (39%)
643 (60%)
431 (40%)
Government And Community Supports And Services
Facilitators
Obstacles
2 (25%)
6 (75%)
33 (38%)
55 (63%)
64
Commonalities between obstacles and facilitators. Some topics figured prominently as both an obstacle as well as a
facilitator. These can best be seen in Figure 4.
Current students with disabilities. For example, it can be seen in Figure 4 and in Table 29 that teachers, the availability of
computers, the Cegep environment, students' schedules, and the course load could be either facilitators or obstacles,
depending on the circumstances. The same is true of students' motivation, study skills, and finances.
Figure 4
Commonalities Between Facilitators and Obstacles: Current Students with Disabilities
37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Facilitators
37%
22%
18%
16%
16%
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Item
Code
Obstacles
accommodations: time / adaptations: temps
friends / ami(es)
schedule / horaire
family / famille
finances / finances
courses / cours
accommodations: pre-registration / adaptations: pré-inscription
other / autres
program / programme
staff / personnel
accommodations : large print / adaptations: impression en gros
caractères
college pre-registration / service de pré-inscription du cégep
accommodations: FM system / adaptations: système MF
job / travail
accommodations: books / adaptations: livres
health / santé
time / temps
stress / stress
language / langue
49
12
25%
0%
6
15
38
22
48
33
58
43
17
4
47
2
31
10
32
2%
0%
1%
8%
2%
1%
5%
13%
11%
1%
7%
3%
3%
1%
10%
62
27
40
25
7
8
23
46
53
59
52
41
1
44
45
3
2%
8%
11%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
11%
6%
0%
0%
0%
3%
11
20
26
19
0%
0%
22%
2%
57
56
9
36
51
54
39
60
5
16
30
35
50
21
34
63
18
42
55
37
65
1%
0%
0%
12%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
7%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
4%
3%
1%
65
Table 29
Commonalities Between Important Obstacles and Facilitators: Current Students With Disabilities
Facilitators: Students With Disabilities
Obstacles: Students With Disabilities
teachers
37%
teachers
25%
22%
courses: hard
22%
accommodations:
courses: general
15%
18%
16%
schedule
13%
16%
job
12%
computers
10%
personal situation
11%
11%
support, help
9%
Cegep environment
friends
8%
transportation
11%
motivation
8%
finances
10%
schedule
7%
computers
8%
Cegep environment
7%
courses: few-many
8%
7%
study skills
7%
study skills
6%
schedule: assignments, exams
7%
6%
transition
6%
family
6%
program
6%
6%
motivation
5%
finances
5%
health
5%
5%
time inadequate
5%
courses: few-many
5%
Note. Boxed items are common to facilitators and obstacles. Important facilitators and obstacles are those that were noted
by at least 5% of participants.
66
Campus based disability service providers. The same was true for service providers. For example, it can be seen in Figure 5
and Table 30 that availability and quality of disability related services, the accessibility of the building, the overall Cegep
environment, how knowledgeable the campus based disability service provider is about disability and accommodations, and
sensitization and information about disabilities were common to facilitators and obstacles. The same was true of teachers,
the availability of computers, and students' personal situations.
Figure 5
Commonalities Between Facilitators and Obstacles: Campus Based Disability Service Providers
46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Facilitators
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Item
staff / personnel
other / autres
finances / finances
schedule / horaire
courses / cours
family / famille
46%
35%
18%
18%
16%
14%
12%
12%
12%
11%
7%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Code Obstacles
49
9%
6
37%
62
21
61
17
2
4
48
22
7
15
40
12
44
58
56
53
47
10
1
19
23
38
32
52
18
27
59
26
43
51
64
3
8
25
31
30%
2%
14%
18%
18%
4%
0%
5%
0%
0%
5%
2%
0%
0%
12%
9%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
7%
0%
0%
0%
7%
7%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
57
2%
67
Table 30
Commonalities Between Important Obstacles And Facilitators: Campus Based Disability Service Providers
Facilitators: Disability Service Providers
teachers
college size
Cegep environment
support, help
computers
accommodation: pre-registration
accommodation: time
personal situation
accommodation: note taker
staff
motivation
Obstacles: Disability Service Providers
46%
35%
18%
18%
16%
14%
12%
12%
12%
11%
7%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
accommodations: services for students with disabilities 37%
30%
Cegep environment
finances
self-advocacy
teachers
transportation
courses: easy-hard
schedule
computers
personal situation
18%
18%
14%
14%
12%
9%
7%
7%
7%
5%
5%
Note. Boxed items are common to facilitators and obstacles. Important facilitators and obstacles are those that were noted
by at least 5% of participants.
68
Graduates with and without disabilities. It should be noted that graduates with different impairments may have required
either similar accommodations (e.g., extended time for exams) or disability specific accommodations (e.g., a sign language
interpreter). Therefore, the percentage of responses that deal with accommodations should be interpreted in this light.
Facilitators. It can be seen in Figure 6 that graduates with and without disabilities noted virtually all of the same important
facilitators (i.e., noted by at least 5% of participants). There are only three exceptions: graduates with disabilities indicated
that their classmates and the services for students with disabilities were important facilitators while nondisabled graduates
noted that their academic preparation was an important facilitator.
Figure 6
Facilitators: Graduates
55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
With Disabilities (n=179)
55%
20%
18%
14%
14%
13%
12%
9%
9%
8%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
Code Without Disabilities (n=1238)
program / programme
friends / ami(es)
finances / finances
courses / cours
schedule / horaire
family / famille
other / autres
job / travail
staff / personnel
accomodations : note taker / adaptations: preneur de notes
electronic portals / portails électroniques
accomodations: time / adaptations: temps
accomodations: pre-registration / adaptations: pré-inscription
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
49
17
58
41
33
32
52
25
40
43
26
19
48
31
22
39
55%
23%
17%
15%
12%
15%
13%
13%
7%
6%
8%
3%
5%
9%
7%
7%
6
47
38
53
0%
8%
3%
3%
57
36
2
34
44
60
1
12
46
42
45
23
51
5%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%
62
27
29
64
18
24
56
30
63
15
7
10
59
16
0%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
69
Obstacles. Similarly, it can be seen in Figure 7 that most important obstacles are also shared (i.e., noted by at least 5% of
participants). Exceptions are that graduates with disabilities noted that their family posed an important obstacle along with
poor motivation and the impact of their disability/impairment. Slightly more nondisabled graduates, on the other hand,
noted that inadequate availability of computers and their academic schedules posed problems.
Figure 7
Obstacles: Graduates
23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
With Disabilities (n=179)
23%
20%
15%
14%
13%
13%
12%
10%
10%
8%
8%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Code
courses / cours
schedule / horaire
job / travail
finances / finances
program / programme
family / famille
health / santé
other / autres
time / temps
stress / stress
language / langue
staff / personnel
friends / ami(es)
accomodations: books / adaptations: livres
accomodations : large print / adaptations: impression en gros
caractères
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Without Disabilities (n=1238)
26
25
49
17
43
40
36
32
27
41
52
47
51
58
31
54
22
35
53
50
34
55
30
37
21%
15%
24%
14%
14%
11%
15%
15%
8%
7%
14%
6%
5%
3%
2%
1%
6%
2%
4%
4%
3%
2%
5%
4%
62
3
2
39
48
42
19
1
18
44
46
10
33
63
56
64
24
5
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11
0%
57
65
21
16
1%
1%
1%
1%
70
Graduates with disabilities who are, and who are not registered to receive disability related services. It can be seen in
Figures 8 and 9 that there were many dissimilarities between these two groups.
Facilitators. Figure 8 shows that 43% of the 23 graduates registered to receive disability related services noted that this
service was a facilitator, making this the second most popular option of this group. It is not surprising that students not
registered for disability related services did not mention this.
Figure 8
Facilitators: Graduates with Disabilities
52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Registered to Receive Services (n=23)
3
2
1
1
Facilitator Item
program / programme
courses / cours
schedule / horaire
Cegep environment / environnement du Cégep
friends / ami(es)
other / autres
job / travail
staff / personnel
electronic portals / portails électroniques
outside services / services à l'extérieur du Cégep
finances / finances
family / famille
52%
43%
17%
13%
13%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Code Not Registered to Receive Services (n=156)
49
55%
6
58
48
12
41
25
43
26
22
38
0%
18%
5%
0%
15%
10%
8%
6%
5%
3%
62
17
33
39
47
53
36
0%
22%
15%
6%
5%
3%
3%
57
1
2
44
7
10
15
29
56
59
32
52
40
19
31
34
60
23
42
45
46
51
18
24
27
30
63
64
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
14%
10%
8%
6%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
71
It can be seen in Table 31 that while there were many similarities between the two groups, there were also important
differences. In particular, registered graduates noted that disability related accommodations were important for them while
those not registered noted other types of facilitators, such as the Cegep environment, their classmates, friends, family,
finances, study skills, and personal situation in general as well as good transportation and library facilities.
Table 31
Commonalities Between Important Facilitators: Graduates Registered And Not Registered For Disability Related Services
Graduates Registered For Disability Related Services
Graduates Not Registered For Disability Related Services
teachers
52%
accommodations:
motivation
43%
17%
support, help
13%
program
13%
9%
teachers
Cegep environment
55%
22%
motivation
18%
friends
15%
program
15%
finances
15%
9%
transportation
14%
schedule
9%
personal situation
10%
courses: easy
9%
courses
10%
computers
9%
schedule
8%
9%
classmates
8%
9%
courses: easy
6%
family
6%
library
6%
support, help
5%
computers
5%
study skills
5%
courses: general
Note. Boxed items are common to both groups. Important facilitators and obstacles are those that were noted by at least
5% of participants.
72
Obstacles. Figure 9 presents the obstacles noted by graduates with disabilities who were, and who were not registered to
receive disability related services. Here it can be seen that registered graduates were much more likely to indicate that their
disability and health were obstacles and that non-registered graduates were more likely to see transportation as problematic.
It is noteworthy that none of the registered graduates indicated that a disability related accommodation posed an obstacle.
Figure 9
Obstacles: Graduates with Disabilities
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Registered to Receive Services (n=23)
22%
22%
17%
17%
13%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Obstacle Item
courses / cours
job / travail
schedule / horaire
finances / finances
health / santé
program / programme
family / famille
language / langue
staff / personnel
time / temps
other / autres
stress / stress
accommodations: books / adaptations: livres
accommodations : large print / adaptations: impression en gros
caractères
friends / ami(es)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Code Not Registered to Receive Services (n=156)
40
54
25
49
36
26
17
43
32
47
22
35
27
41
51
31
58
37
12%
3%
20%
15%
12%
26%
15%
13%
10%
6%
4%
4%
11%
9%
6%
6%
6%
3%
62
42
48
44
56
63
52
50
53
34
55
3
30
2
39
1
10
18
19
46
5
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
9%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
11
24
33
64
1%
1%
1%
1%
73
It can be seen in Table 32 that registered graduates with disabilities were likely to see their disability/impairment, their
health, and poor access to computers as important obstacles while graduates with disabilities who did not register did not
note these as obstacles. They did, however, note that their course load and program of studies posed obstacles along with
transition issues, transportation problems, their family situations and a low level of motivation.
Table 32
Commonalities Between Important Obstacles: Graduates Registered And Not Registered For Disability Related Services
Graduates Registered For Disability Related Services
Graduates Not Registered For Disability Related Services
personal situation
22%
courses: difficult
26%
disability, impairment
22%
courses: general
20%
courses: general
17%
teachers
15%
teachers
17%
Cegep environment
15%
job
13%
schedule
13%
9%
job
12%
Cegep environment
9%
personal situation
12%
schedule
9%
courses: many
11%
finances
9%
finances
10%
study skills
9%
program
9%
computers
9%
transportation
9%
health
9%
transition
6%
courses: difficult
study skills
6%
family
6%
motivation
6%
Note. Boxed items are common to both groups. Important facilitators and obstacles are those that were noted by at least
5% of participants.
74
Recommendations for changes. The questions asked on French and English versions of the questionnaire were slightly
different. Before combining the results we examined the responses of participants who were asked different questions.
Current students with disabilities and campus based disability service providers. Responses of students with disabilities
who were asked the two different questions are presented in Figure 10. Visual examination revealed that changes suggested
by current students responding to the two slightly different questions were similar enough to combine. Therefore, the
comparison of the recommendations made by all current students with disabilities and by campus based disability service
providers is presented in Figure 11.
Figure 10
Changes: Current Students with Disabilities
12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Question: At your Cegep,
what could be changed to
make Cegep studies easier
for you ? (n=185)
12%
11%
9%
9%
9%
9%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Change Item
no changes needed/all is good
better teachers
courses: easier
improve services for students with disabilities
other change
better schedule
more technology
improve program
improve library
smaller class size
more tutoring
more expertise: disabilities
courses: fewer
more self-advocacy
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Question: At your Cegep, what
could be changed to make Cegep
Code
studies easier for students with
disabilities ? (n=112)
39
11
19
31
22
29
18
9
21
7
40
4
28
26
1
27
8
34
23
17
25
24
15
3
10
33
35
32
5
2
16
12
20
30
13
14
36
15%
5%
13%
9%
7%
6%
13%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
2%
4%
2%
5%
1%
0%
9%
4%
1%
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
3%
2%
1%
1%
Note. Percentages refer to the percent of participants who said this.
75
Figure 11
Recommendations Made By All Current Students With Disabilities And By Campus Based Disability Service Providers
Current Students with
Disabilities (n=297)
Change Item
13%
10%
9%
9%
better teachers
9%
8%
8%
courses: easier
5%
5%
5%
5%
other change
5%
4%
4%
better schedule
4%
3%
2%
2%
more technology
2%
2%
2%
smaller class size
1%
improve program
1%
1%
1%
improve library
1%
courses: fewer
1%
1%
more tutoring
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
larger college size
Code
39
19
11
31
18
22
29
21
9
4
40
7
23
26
28
27
1
17
24
8
32
25
34
5
15
30
10
16
2
3
13
33
35
6
0%
23%
7%
0%
39%
5%
0%
0%
12%
9%
4%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
11%
0%
0%
16%
5%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
It can be seen in Figure 11 that, 13% of students with disabilities felt that things were reasonably good and that no changes
were needed whereas this response not given by any of the service providers. Of high priority to both students with
disabilities and disability service providers was the need for sensitizing and informing others about disabilities. Other
changes that were suggested frequently by both groups were improving general support and help, improving services for
students with disabilities, including providing better access to computer technologies, improving building accessibility and
the college system as a whole. Disability service providers were far more likely to suggest changes involving their services
and accessibility of classrooms and facilities than were students with disabilities. Promoting collaboration and
communication between staff, teachers and students, increased funding for their services, and better availability of tutoring
were also frequent suggestions among disability service providers. Students, but not campus based disability service
providers, also wanted easier courses, better teachers, more human assistance, and improvement of the Cegep's facilities in
general.
Graduates. Because we wanted to compare the responses of graduates with and without disabilities from the same
institutions we used data from only those graduates who answered the identical question: "At your Cegep, what could be
changed to make Cegep studies easier for you?" Figure 12 presents the results.
76
Figure 12
Recommendations Made By Graduates With And Without Disabilities
13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Graduates With Disabilities
(n=119)
1
Change Item
13%
better schedule
13%
12%
12%
better teachers
11%
11%
courses: easier
8%
more technology
8%
8%
improve program
6%
5%
5%
3%
other change
3%
improve library
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
facilitate balancing job and school
2%
2%
1%
courses: fewer
1%
more tutoring
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
smaller class size
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
Graduates Without
Code
Disabilities (n=863)
26
4
28
31
7
29
17
11
25
9
39
1
40
15
13
8
10
34
12
37
18
19
30
16
14
3
21
33
32
11%
12%
12%
11%
11%
5%
12%
6%
5%
2%
7%
3%
3%
4%
0%
2%
2%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
Changes suggested by graduates with and without disabilities were very similar and were generally aimed at the Cegep in
general. Of greatest importance to both groups were better schedules, improving the college system, improving programs
and courses in general, having better teachers, more available computer technologies, support and help as well as
improvements to the physical environment of the college. A slightly larger proportion of graduates with disabilities
suggested the need for easier courses, better building accessibility and more government support.
77
Cegep Experience Questionnaire: Refining the CEQ - Psychometric Analyses
Two kinds of reliability were evaluated on data from current students with disabilities: temporal stability and internal
consistency. Temporal stability was evaluated by correlating test-retest scores (item-by-item, 3 Subscales, Index of
Difficulty). Internal consistency of each of the 3 Subscales was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha for current students with
disabilities and for graduates with and without disabilities.
Students made ratings on the 32 items of the Cegep Experience Questionnaire using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = much
harder, 6 = much easier). We grouped the 32 items based on face validity into three PPH model based conceptual subscales
and an overall Index of Difficutly (IDF):
•
•
•
•
Students' Personal Situation (9 items including 1 that is applicable to students/graduates with disabilities only)
Cegep Environment (13 items including 1 that is applicable to students/graduates with disabilities only)
Government and Community Supports and Services (9 items including 4 that are applicable to students/graduates
with disabilities only)
Index of Difficulty (IDF) (25 items are common to students with and without disabilities, 6 are applicable only to
students/graduates with disabilities).
To be consistent with the goals of providing an instrument that can be used on an item-by-item basis as well as having
subscales, we used the single items, the 3 Subscales, and the total Index of Difficulty (IDF) in the analyses.
Two versions of the Index of Difficulty (IDF) and of the Subscale scores were calculated: one set includes only those items
which are applicable to both students and graduates with and without disabilities. These are best used when comparing
scores of students or graduates with and without disabilities. A second set was calculated that includes items that are
disability specific as well. This set of scores is best used in analyses dealing only with students or graduates with
disabilities.
Although most of the validation of this instrument was carried out in a previous investigation (Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, &
Barile, 2005) we also carried an additional test of validity by correlating Subscale and Index of Difficulty scores.
Temporal stability: test-retest reliability. To determine temporal stability of items we performed Pearson productmoment correlations on the test-retest questionnaire scores of current students with disabilities.
Item-by-item evaluation. Data from current students were used to examine the test-retest results for each of the 32 items.
Results presented in Table 33 show that all correlation coefficients are of moderate to large size and highly significant.
Moreover, of the 32 paired t-tests which compared Time 1 and Time 2 (i.e., test-retest) scores, only one was significant
before a Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha level was made. After the Bonferroni adjustment, none remained significant.
78
Table 33
Cegep Experience Questionnaire Item-By-Item Test-Retest Scores for Current Students with Disab ilities: Means, t-tests, and Correlations
Correlation
r
Sig.
Item
Number
Test
Time Mean
n
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
t
df
Sig.
Personal Situation
Students' Personal Situtation
0.000
0.80
1
Financial Situation
0.66
0.000
2
Paid employment
0.78
0.000
3
Family situation
0.57
0.000
4
Friends
0.70
0.000
5
Level of personal motivation
0.63
0.000
6
Study habits
0.51
0.000
7
Previous educational experience
0.83
0.000
8
Health
0.59
0.000
9
Impact of my disability
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Cegep Environment
0.000
0.65
10
Level of difficulty of courses
0.68
0.000
11
Course load
0.59
0.000
12
Course schedule
0.64
0.000
13
Attitudes of professors
0.50
0.000
14
Attitudes of non-teaching staff
0.59
0.000
15
Attitudes of students
0.52
0.000
16
Availability of computers on-campus
0.70
0.000
17
Training on computer technologies on campus
0.39
0.000
18
Availability of course materials
0.71
0.000
19
Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities
0.55
0.000
20
Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs
0.66
0.000
21
Accessibility of building facilities
0.70
0.000
22
Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
0.55
0.000
23
Availability of disability related services at Cegep
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
0.000
0.67
24
Availability of financial aid
0.79
0.000
25
Available of tutoring outside the Cegep
0.71
0.000
26
Public transportation
0.72
0.000
27
Availability of computers off-campus
0.68
0.000
28
Training on computer technologies off-campus
0.62
0.000
29
Disability related support services off campus
0.67
0.000
30
Availability of adapted transportation for people with disabilities
0.65
0.000
31
Coordination between disability related services
0.55
0.000
32
Availability of physical adaptations/technical aids at home
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3.46
3.49
3.34
3.59
4.30
4.41
4.65
4.68
4.62
4.57
4.03
4.01
4.23
4.33
3.81
3.70
2.43
2.41
134
134
80
80
148
148
151
151
155
155
156
156
151
151
138
138
148
148
1.76
1.71
1.60
1.52
1.71
1.56
1.43
1.28
1.50
1.47
1.56
1.50
1.55
1.50
1.83
1.75
1.20
1.22
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.10
0.10
-0.39
133
0.695
-1.72
79
0.089
-1.21
147
0.226
-0.32
150
0.748
0.49
154
0.625
0.24
155
0.809
-0.86
150
0.390
1.21
137
0.230
0.22
147
0.822
3.18
3.14
3.01
3.10
3.65
3.84
4.32
4.26
4.96
4.85
4.33
4.18
4.64
4.69
4.15
4.17
4.71
4.60
4.17
4.06
4.46
4.13
4.76
4.61
4.82
4.60
5.01
4.98
156
156
154
154
153
153
156
156
141
141
148
148
146
146
87
87
149
149
100
100
151
151
98
98
101
101
141
141
1.30
1.37
1.61
1.55
1.58
1.48
1.48
1.46
1.14
1.16
1.35
1.26
1.47
1.32
1.58
1.37
1.16
1.17
1.72
1.75
1.41
1.53
1.35
1.45
1.37
1.43
1.35
1.15
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.17
0.15
0.09
0.10
0.17
0.18
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.43
155
0.668
-0.90
153
0.370
-1.75
152
0.082
0.58
155
0.564
1.10
140
0.274
1.61
147
0.110
-0.48
145
0.629
-0.18
86
0.854
1.09
148
0.279
0.83
99
0.411
2.92
150
0.004
1.21
97
0.228
2.02
100
0.046
0.35
140
0.726
4.01
3.80
4.30
4.19
4.21
4.36
4.89
4.93
4.02
4.24
3.81
3.98
4.00
3.68
4.57
4.18
4.41
4.64
81
81
73
73
106
106
121
121
50
50
64
64
28
28
44
44
44
44
1.83
1.86
1.54
1.55
1.85
1.67
1.52
1.45
1.72
1.60
1.74
1.69
2.13
2.07
1.45
1.63
1.86
1.50
0.20
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.40
0.39
0.22
0.25
0.28
0.23
1.25
80
0.213
0.93
72
0.356
-1.16
105
0.250
-0.41
120
0.682
-1.17
49
0.248
-0.92
63
0.362
1.00
27
0.326
1.97
43
0.055
-0.93
43
0.359
Note. Boxed items are significant.
79
Subscale scores. The three Subscales that are comprised of Cegep Experience Questionnaire items are: Students' Personal
Situation, Cegep Environment, and Government and Community Supports and Services. Items included in the Subscales are
indicated in Table 34 below (boxed items are part of the subscales for students/graduates with disabilities only). Similarly,
although items from all three Subscales are included in the Index of Difficulty (IDF), boxed items are part of the Index of
Difficulty for students and graduates with disabilities only.
Table 34
Items Comprising the Subscales and Index of Difficulty (IDF)
1
Financial situation
2
Paid employment
3
Family situation
4
Friends
5
6
Study habits
7
8
Health
9
Cegep Environment
10 Level of difficulty of courses
11 Course load
12 Course schedule
13 Attitudes of professors
14 Attitudes of non-teaching staff
15 Attitudes of students
16 Availability of computers on campus
17 Training on computer technologies on campus
18 Availability of course materials
19 Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities
20 Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs
21 Accessibility of building facilities
22 Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
23 Availability of disability related services at the Cegep
24 Availability of financial aid
25 Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
26 Public transportation
27 Availability of computers off-campus
28 Training on computer technologies off-campus
29 Disability related support services off-campus
30 Availability of adapted transportation for people with disabilities
31 Coordination between disability related services
32 Availability of physical adaptations/technical aids at home
Note. Boxed items are part of the Subscales for students/graduates with disabilities only.
80
Results presented in Table 35 show a significant difference between the two testing times for the Cegep Environment
Subscale only. After a Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha level, this item was no longer significant. All test-retest Pearson
product-moment coefficients are moderate to large and highly significant, indicating acceptable temporal stability for the
Subscales and Index of Difficulty both for scores including and excluding disability related items.
Table 35
Sub scales and Index of Difficulty Test-Retest Scores: Means, t-tests, and Correlations
Correlation
Test
Time Mean
Sig.
n
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t
df
Sig.
Including Disability Specific Items
0.84
0.000
Personal Situation Subscale
0.79
0.000
Cegep Environment Subscale
0.73
0.000
Gov't and Community Supports and Services Subscale
0.86
0.000
Index of Difficulty
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3.92
3.94
4.28
4.20
4.28
4.28
4.16
4.12
157
157
154
154
53
53
154
154
0.89
0.86
0.72
0.76
1.02
1.07
0.69
0.71
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.14
0.15
0.06
0.06
-0.43
156
0.666
2.25
153
0.026
0.04
52
0.966
1.32
153
0.189
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
4.12
4.15
4.22
4.13
4.33
4.33
4.21
4.17
158
158
154
154
85
85
156
156
0.93
0.90
0.73
0.77
1.05
1.09
0.71
0.73
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.11
0.12
0.06
0.06
-0.72
157
0.474
2.22
153
0.028
0.06
84
0.948
1.09
155
0.277
Excluding Disability Specific Items
0.83
0.000
0.78
0.000
0.75
0.000
Gov't and Community Supports and Services Subscale
0.85
0.000
Index of Difficulty
Note. Boxed items are significant.
Internal consistency reliability: Cegep Experience Questionnaire Subscale and Index of Difficulty scores. We
evaluated internal consistency both for current students with disabilities as well as for graduates with and without
disabilities. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported in Table 36 indicate that the internal consistency of the 3 Subscales are
acceptable and that most alpha values exceed .700, with the lowest being .584. Subscale scores and Index of Difficulty
scores were calculated both including and excluding the disability specific items.
Table 36
Internal Consistency of Subscales: Cronbach's Alpha
Subscales
Current Students
With Disabilities
n
Alpha
Only items common to those with and without disabilities included: 26 items
126
Cegep Environment
94
45
.716
.757
.756
Disability specific items included: 32 items
Cegep Subscale
.737
.774
.891
119
92
20
Graduates
No Disabilities
n
Graduates With
Disabilities
Alpha
n
Alpha
666 .637
432 .762
108 .659
96
51
15
.598
.830
.584
47
21
----
.719
.895
----
81
Relationships Among Cegep Experience Questionnaire Subscales: Validity
Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients for current students with disabilities presented in Table 37 indicate modest
significant correlations among Subscales and with Index of Difficulty scores when the scores on the Subscale in question
are excluded. The correlations are very high and significant between Subscales and Index of Difficulty scores when the
Subscale in question is included. This is true when disability specific items are as well as when they are not part of the
analyses.
Table 37
Correlations Among Subscale and Index of Difficulty Scores for Current Students with Disabilities
Personal
Subscale
Cegep
Subscale
Community
Subscale
Index of
Difficulty
Excluding Disability Specific Items
Cegep Environment
Index of Difficulty (relevant Subscale included)
Index of Difficulty (relevant Subscale excluded)
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
0.431
0.000
289
0.341
0.000
247
0.776
0.000
293
0.453
0.000
249
0.529
0.000
245
0.872
0.000
291
0.533
0.000
285
0.694
0.000
248
0.518
0.000
248
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
Pearson r
Significance
N
0.444
0.000
286
0.379
0.000
132
0.764
0.000
287
0.458
0.000
264
0.573
0.000
131
0.871
0.000
290
0.610
0.000
272
0.795
0.000
132
0.537
0.000
132
Including Disability Specific Items
Cegep Environment
Index of Difficulty (relevant Subscale included)
Index of Difficulty (relevant Subscale excluded)
82
Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ): Facilitators And Obstacles
A series of analyses were conducted to evaluate Students' Personal Situation, Cegep Environment, and Government and
Community Supports and Services Subscale based obstacles and facilitators for current students with disabilities, Cegep
based disability service providers, and the 3 groups of graduates. It should be noted that the response scale for students and
graduates was a 6-point scale of difficulty, with 1 = much harder and 6 = much easier. For campus based disability service
providers the response scale was a 5-point scale of importance, with 1 = not important and 5 = extremely important.
Current students with disabilities. Table 38 shows the mean scores and sample sizes (n) for all CEQ questionnaire items.
Table 38
Using the following scale, indicate in what way each of the items below has affected your Cegep studies by making them:
1
Much
Harder
2
Moderately
Harder
3
Slightly
Harder
4
Slightly
Easier
5
Moderately
Easier
6
Much
Easier
[ N/A ]
Not
Applicable
1. __3.46 (n=243)__Financial situation
2. __3.24 (n=160)__Paid employment
3. __4.33 (n=276)__Family situation
4. __4.65 (n=275)__Friends
5. __4.55 (n=293)__Level of personal motivation
6. __3.86 (n=296)__Study habits
7. __4.26 (n=288)__Previous education experiences
8. __3.89 (n=258)__Health
9. __2.55 (n=274)__Impact of my disability
Cegep Environment
10. __3.16 (n=295)__Level of difficulty of courses
11. __3.04 (n=296)__Course load
12. __3.79 (n=291)__Course schedule
13. __4.46 (n=295)__Attitudes of professors
14. __4.94 (n=273)__Attitudes of non-teaching staff (e.g., registration staff, financial aid staff)
15. __4.47 (n=287)__Attitudes of students
16. __4.59 (n=272)__Availability of computers on campus
17. __4.30 (n=184)__Training on computer technologies on campus
18. __4.66 (n=279)__Availability of course materials
19. __4.03 (n=208)__Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities (e.g., clubs, sports, social activities)
20. __4.42 (n=285)__Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs
21. __4.75 (n=208)__Accessibility of building facilities (e.g., doorways, classrooms, labs)
22. __4.68 (n=203)__Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
23. __4.98 (n=281)__Availability of disability related services at the Cegep
24. __3.98 (n=168)__Availability of financial aid
25. __3.95 (n=157)__Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
26. __4.04 (n=207)__Public transportation
27. __4.89 (n=233)__Availability of computers off-campus
28. __4.05 (n=114)__Training on computer technologies off-campus
29. __3.78 (n=157)__Disability-related support services off-campus
30. __3.48 (n=65)___Availability of adapted transport for student with disabilities
31. __4.14 (n=95)___Coordination between disability-related support services (e.g., attendant care, adapted transport) and school
32. __4.43 (n=94)___Availability of adaptations / technical aids at home (e.g., ramp, TDD)
83
Table 39 shows the mean scores, in rank order of difficulty, ranging from making studies easier to harder, of current
students with disabilities. Results indicate that the availability of disability related services and accommodations was seen
as the most important facilitator by students and the impact of their disability was seen as the most important obstacle.
The mean difficulty rating of items was 4.12 (median = 4.20) on a 6-point scale, with lower scores indicating greater
difficulty (range: 2.55 to 4.98). Results indicate that on Subscales (including disability specific items), Students' Personal
Situation posed the most difficulty and Cegep Environment the least, with Government and Community Supports and
Services being in between.
Table 39
Rank Order of Difficulty: Students with Disabilities - Easy to Hard
Item #
23
14
27
21
22
18
4
16
5
15
13
32
20
3
17
7
31
28
26
19
24
25
8
6
12
29
30
1
2
10
11
9
Friends
Family situation
Health
Study habits
Course schedule
Availability of adapted transportation for people with
disabilities
Financial situation
Paid employment
Course load
Subscales
Cegep Environment
Mean Rank
4.98
4.94
4.89
4.75
4.68
4.66
4.65
4.59
4.55
4.47
4.46
4.43
4.42
4.33
4.30
4.26
4.14
4.05
4.04
4.03
3.98
3.95
3.89
3.86
3.79
3.78
3.48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3.46
3.24
3.16
3.04
2.55
28
29
30
31
32
4.28
3.97
3.90
1
2
3
Subscale of Item
Cegep
Cegep
Community
Cegep
Cegep
Cegep
Personal
Cegep
Personal
Cegep
Cegep
Community
Cegep
Personal
Cegep
Personal
Community
Community
Community
Cegep
Community
Community
Personal
Personal
Cegep
Community
Community
Personal
Personal
Cegep
Cegep
Personal
N
SD
281
273
233
208
203
279
275
272
293
287
295
94
285
276
184
288
95
114
207
208
168
157
258
296
291
157
65
1.28
1.14
1.51
1.38
1.42
1.22
1.42
1.47
1.53
1.32
1.44
1.77
1.41
1.66
1.49
1.56
1.65
1.68
1.86
1.74
1.83
1.76
1.80
1.59
1.52
1.77
2.05
243
160
295
296
274
1.81
1.68
1.28
1.52
1.32
296
132
290
0.72
1.21
0.92
Results of a 1-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) examining mean scores on the 3 Subscales shows a
significant-test result, F(2, 260) = 8.50, p=.000. Post hoc tests show that the Cegep Environment score was significantly
higher than scores on both Personal and Community Subscales and that Students' Personal Situation Subscale did not differ
significantly from the Government and Community Supports and Services Subscale score.
84
It can be seen in Table 40 below, which shows facilitator CEQ items (i.e., score > 3.5 on a 6-point scale) arranged in rank order
of difficulty (easier items have higher ranks than more difficult items) within groupings, that most factors were seen as
facilitating students' studies. It should be noted that although the means indicate that these are, overall, facilitating, these factors
constituted obstacles to some students.
Table 40
Facilitating Factors For Students With Disabilities In Rank Order By Subscale
1 Friends
2 Student’s motivation
3 Family situation
4 Previous education experiences
5 Health
6 Study habits
Cegep Environment
1 Availability of disability related services
3 Accessibility of building facilities
4 Accessibility of physical education courses
5 Availability of course material
6 Availability of computers
8 Attitudes of profs
9 Willingness of profs to adapt courses
10 Training on computer technologies
11 Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities
12 Course schedule
1 Availability of computers off-campus
2 Availability of adaptations at home
3 Training on computers off-campus
4 Coordination between support services
7 Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
8 Disability related support services off-campus
Although most items were seen as facilitating student success, the 6 factors shown in Table 23x were seen as obstacles (scores in the
obstacles range <3.5 on a 6-point scale). It should be noted, however, that although the means indicate that these are, overall,
obstacles, these factors constituted facilitators to some students.
Table 41
Obstacles For Students With Disabilities In Rank Order of Difficulty (Most to Least Difficult)
1. Impact of my disability
2. Paid employment
3. Financial situation
Cegep Environment
1. Course load
2. Course difficulty
1. Adapted transport
85
Relationship between facilitators and obstacles and the number of students' impairments. We expected that the more
impairments students have (i.e., 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, etc.) , the more obstacles they would encounter. Correlations between the
number of students' impairments and Cegep Experience Questionnaire Index of Difficulty, Subscale and item-by-item
scores for current students with disabilities are presented in Table 42. Results show that for 9 of the 10 instances where
there was a significant correlation, the more disabilities students had, the more likely they were to experience the item as an
obstacle.
Table 42
Current Students with Disabitlies: Correlations Between Number of Impairments and Subscale and Item Scores
Item #
Pearson Correlation
sig
n
1
Financial situation
2
Paid employment
3
Family situation
4
Friends
5
6
Study habits
7
Previous educat ional experience
8
Health
9
0.003
-0.051
-0.119
-0.172
-0.007
0.025
0.130
-0.261
-0.043
0.959
0.519
0.048
0.004
0.908
0.669
0.027
0.000
0.483
243
160
276
275
293
296
288
258
274
Cegep Environment
10
11
Course load
12
Course schedule
13
14
Attitudes of non-t eaching staff
15
Attitudes of st udents
16
17
18
Availability of c ourse materials
19
20
21
22
23
-0.069
-0.077
-0.075
0.048
0.093
-0.108
-0.050
0.023
-0.078
-0.140
0.083
-0.175
-0.143
0.060
0.239
0.189
0.201
0.408
0.125
0.067
0.414
0.756
0.194
0.043
0.161
0.011
0.042
0.314
295
296
291
295
273
287
272
184
279
208
285
208
203
281
Government and Com munity Supports and Services
24
25
26
Public transport ation
27
28
29
30
31
32
Availability of phy sical adaptations/technical aids at home
-0.029
-0.002
-0.193
0.020
-0.069
-0.102
-0.317
-0.254
-0.128
0.709
0.980
0.005
0.759
0.467
0.205
0.010
0.013
0.220
168
157
207
233
114
157
65
95
94
Subscales
Students' Pers onal Situation
Cegep Environment
Index of Difficult y
-0.079
-0.062
-0.101
-0.115
0.178
0.285
0.248
0.050
290
296
132
292
Note . Boxed Items are significant.
Similarities and differences between current students with different disabilities. In Table 43 means on CEQ items and Subscales
are presented for students in each disability group. It should be noted that a large proportion of students have multiple
disabilities, and that the scores in Table 43 include all students who mentioned the disability in question. Scores of students
who have only the disability in question can be seen in Tables 44, 46, and 16.
86
Table 43
Subscales, Index of Difficulty and Cegep Experience Questionnaire Scores of Current Students with Different Disabilities
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
Speech /
communication
impairment
N
Mean
2
1
2
2
3.44
4.08
3.50
3.76
28
29
19
28
4.04
4.16
3.68
4.06
16
17
10
17
4.17
4.32
4.19
4.29
38
38
14
38
4.20
4.57
4.41
4.45
14
16
7
15
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4.00
26
17
28
26
28
29
26
24
25
3.38
2.82
4.39
5.08
4.86
4.17
4.46
3.83
2.40
16
11
15
16
16
16
17
15
16
3.06
3.55
4.80
4.94
4.38
4.50
4.35
4.53
3.50
30
20
34
34
38
38
36
36
36
3.77
3.85
4.41
4.79
4.74
4.05
4.22
4.64
3.19
1.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.50
29
28
29
29
26
26
27
15
28
20
28
22
21
28
3.24
3.25
3.86
4.48
4.73
4.54
3.85
3.87
4.04
4.15
4.43
4.55
4.24
5.07
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
13
16
13
17
11
13
17
3.29
3.53
4.12
4.76
4.53
4.41
4.75
4.54
4.63
3.23
4.35
4.82
4.54
4.76
38
39
38
38
31
38
35
21
33
25
35
27
29
36
3.50
6.00
4.50
2.00
1.50
2.00
6.00
21
14
20
23
16
20
9
12
15
3.71
3.43
3.50
4.70
3.50
3.90
2.33
3.83
4.07
16
12
11
11
7
9
5
6
14
3.81
4.50
4.73
4.91
4.00
3.56
4.40
4.33
4.29
23
23
26
31
11
21
5
6
13
Item
#
Subscales
Cegep Environment
Index of Difficulty
1
Financial situation
2
Paid employment
3
Family situation
4
Friends
5
6
Study habits
7
Previous education experiences
8
Health
9
Cegep Environment
10
11
Course load
12
Course schedule
13
14
15
16
Availability of computers on campus
17
18
19
Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities
20
21
22
23
Availability of disability related services at the Cegep
24
25
Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
26
27
28
29
Disability related support services off-campus
30
Availability of adapted transport for students with disabilities
31
Coordination between disability related support services and school
32
Availability of adaptations / technical aids at home
Blind
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2.50
3.50
4.50
4.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
4.50
4.00
5.50
6.00
Visual impairment
Hearing
impairment
Deaf
Learning
disability / ADD
N
Mean
4.17
4.19
3.72
4.08
137
141
58
139
3.79
4.17
3.97
4.06
11
6
15
12
15
16
15
13
12
3.91
3.00
4.80
4.08
5.00
4.06
5.40
3.46
2.83
114
82
129
132
141
140
138
118
130
3.49
3.20
4.16
4.69
4.38
3.62
3.89
4.26
2.35
3.32
3.21
3.92
4.66
5.13
4.79
5.09
4.90
5.06
4.68
4.86
5.48
5.07
4.72
14
16
16
16
15
16
13
9
14
10
16
13
10
14
3.00
3.00
3.69
4.88
5.07
4.31
4.00
3.78
4.50
3.40
4.63
4.23
4.10
5.21
142
142
138
139
129
136
132
92
132
102
137
88
89
132
2.82
2.72
3.68
4.17
4.82
4.49
4.62
4.11
4.61
4.16
4.28
4.91
4.88
4.91
4.13
4.00
5.15
5.00
3.82
4.52
5.40
5.33
4.46
10
8
12
14
5
9
3
3
4
4.40
4.13
3.33
5.14
3.80
2.89
1.00
2.67
3.25
69
88
95
116
63
66
15
33
24
3.87
3.77
4.21
4.98
4.02
3.41
4.40
4.39
4.42
87
Item
#
Subscales
Cegep Environment
Index of Difficulty
1
Financial situation
2
Paid employment
3
Family situation
4
Friends
5
6
Study habits
7
8
Health
9
Cegep Environment
10
11
Course load
12
Course schedule
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Coordination between disability related support services and school
32
Mobility
impairment
N
Mean
Limitation in the use of
hands / arms
N
Mean
Medically related /
Health problem
N
Mean
Psychological /
Psychiatric disability
N
Mean
Neurological
impairment
N
Mean
N
Mean
53
51
36
52
3.92
4.34
3.69
4.10
28
30
22
29
4.23
4.42
3.81
4.25
32
33
15
33
3.41
4.16
3.81
3.88
32
32
18
32
3.44
4.05
3.98
3.85
23
25
8
24
3.82
4.32
3.73
4.12
1
1
1
1
2.22
3.57
3.50
3.16
46
17
52
47
52
53
51
47
48
3.13
2.88
4.37
4.64
4.79
3.87
4.88
2.98
2.60
25
10
27
25
29
30
29
27
27
3.96
3.70
4.85
4.56
5.00
4.17
5.31
3.30
2.85
29
16
31
31
33
33
33
33
31
3.14
2.81
3.52
4.16
4.24
3.97
4.42
2.03
2.10
26
13
31
31
31
32
32
30
32
3.35
3.62
3.32
4.00
4.03
3.97
4.25
2.53
1.88
19
10
22
21
25
25
25
23
20
3.26
2.40
4.55
4.05
4.72
3.88
4.56
3.35
2.60
7
1
10
9
11
11
11
10
10
4.86
4.00
4.50
3.56
4.45
3.64
4.36
4.30
2.90
50
50
48
52
51
53
45
31
48
35
49
50
32
51
3.72
3.08
3.58
5.04
5.29
4.43
4.53
4.71
4.77
3.09
4.69
3.90
4.03
5.37
28
30
28
30
29
30
26
20
28
19
30
29
17
29
3.57
3.30
3.64
5.10
5.41
4.53
4.69
4.95
4.64
2.63
4.83
4.00
4.65
5.28
33
33
33
33
31
33
31
18
32
19
33
29
27
32
2.94
2.70
3.45
4.27
4.94
3.91
4.48
4.72
4.59
3.95
4.61
4.69
4.48
5.00
32
32
32
32
32
31
31
19
31
20
31
20
22
29
3.19
3.03
3.97
4.06
5.06
3.61
4.29
3.63
4.16
4.25
3.94
4.30
4.18
4.69
24
25
25
25
23
23
22
15
21
17
24
20
17
23
2.46
2.56
3.76
4.44
5.30
4.57
4.50
4.40
5.00
3.94
4.88
4.95
4.71
5.43
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
4
10
8
8
10
3.45
4.00
3.73
5.00
5.00
4.10
4.80
4.10
4.73
5.50
4.60
5.00
4.50
5.20
37
17
36
39
18
32
32
34
34
4.14
3.82
2.78
4.77
4.56
3.47
2.72
3.47
4.32
18
11
20
23
10
19
17
18
22
4.06
4.36
2.80
5.13
4.90
3.58
2.24
3.44
4.64
21
17
25
25
8
18
9
11
12
3.71
3.76
3.28
4.72
4.00
3.72
3.78
3.82
4.00
18
18
27
31
11
22
5
14
7
3.56
4.06
3.63
4.58
3.45
3.91
3.20
3.86
4.86
10
9
20
20
9
10
8
11
10
4.70
4.33
3.85
5.25
3.56
3.70
3.25
4.27
4.00
4
8
8
9
3
8
0
4
1
4.25
5.00
5.00
4.89
3.67
4.50
PDD
4.25
1.00
88
Comparisons of CEQ means by disability type. To determine whether there were differences in CEQ scores related to
graduates' impairments, disability categories were combined. Here we ensured that current students with multiple
disabilities were grouped into one category and were not represented in each disability category. This resulted in 8
impairment categories. The number of students who fell in each of the categories is shown in Table 44. Scores of students
who have only the disability in question can be seen in Tables 45.
Table 44
Grouping Current Students With Disabilities Into 8 Combined Disability Categories
Combined Disability Categories
1 Visual impairment and blindness only
2 Hearing impairment and Deafness only
3 Learning disability/ADD only
4 Mobility and hand/arm impairment only
5 Medical / neurological impairment only
6 Psychological impairment / PDD only
7 Multiple disabilities
8 Other (unclassified and speech/communication impairment)
Total with disabilities
Frequency
16
39
103
19
14
16
90
3
300
Percent
5.33
13.00
34.33
6.33
4.67
5.33
30.00
1.00
100.00
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
89
Table 45
Mean Cegep Experiences Questionnaire Scores of Current Students with Different Disabilities: Multiple Disabilities Separated
#
Item
Hearing
Visual impairment
Learning
impairment and
and blindness
disability / ADD
Deafness
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mobility and
hand / arm
impairment
Medical /
neurological
impairment
Psychological
impairment /
PDD
Multiple
disabilities
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
N
75
N
N
N
1
Financial situation
3.69
13
3.53
32
3.36
84
2.75
16
3.00
11
3.80
10
3.60
2
Paid employment
2.67
9
3.67
24
3.18
71
2.75
8
3.17
6
4.43
7
3.00
33
3
Family situation
4.33
15
4.63
35
4.31
91
4.95
19
3.69
13
4.50
14
4.17
86
4
Friends
5.21
14
4.83
35
4.81
97
4.88
17
4.50
14
4.36
14
4.32
82
5
5.07
15
4.46
37
4.38
102
5.16
19
4.86
14
4.73
15
4.44
89
6
Study habits
4.50
16
4.00
37
3.54
101
3.89
19
4.43
14
4.19
16
3.88
90
7
4.85
13
4.39
36
3.69
99
5.00
18
4.86
14
4.19
16
4.52
89
8
Health
3.75
12
4.68
34
4.63
84
3.38
16
2.36
14
3.73
15
3.20
82
9
2.21
14
3.33
36
2.47
96
2.88
16
2.14
14
2.40
15
2.41
82
Cegep Environment
10
3.38
16
3.55
38
2.87
103
4.06
17
2.71
14
3.88
16
3.03
88
11
Course load
3.73
15
3.38
39
2.77
103
3.06
17
2.50
14
4.13
16
2.98
89
12
Course schedule
3.81
16
4.05
39
3.69
99
3.76
17
2.71
14
4.50
16
3.78
87
13
4.25
16
4.42
38
4.31
100
5.44
18
3.64
14
4.88
16
4.51
90
14
4.85
13
4.91
32
4.67
92
5.50
18
4.57
14
5.00
16
5.16
85
15
4.54
13
4.68
38
4.54
98
4.84
19
4.38
13
3.57
14
4.31
89
16
3.62
13
5.03
34
4.62
95
4.40
15
4.75
12
4.50
16
4.58
84
17
2.75
4
4.65
23
4.06
67
4.82
11
4.44
9
4.20
10
4.46
59
18
3.69
16
4.97
34
4.68
96
5.00
18
4.93
14
4.67
15
4.55
83
19
4.20
10
4.32
28
4.22
78
3.31
13
4.40
10
4.90
10
3.51
57
20
4.47
15
4.60
35
4.24
99
4.65
17
4.00
14
4.36
14
4.53
88
21
5.00
12
5.28
25
4.98
62
4.44
18
4.89
9
5.13
8
4.32
73
22
4.77
13
5.17
29
5.04
67
3.67
12
4.50
12
4.67
9
4.25
60
23
5.27
15
4.44
36
4.90
97
5.17
18
5.62
13
4.93
14
5.09
86
24
3.89
9
4.20
25
3.68
53
4.07
14
4.00
7
4.00
5
4.13
54
25
3.60
5
4.13
24
3.67
67
2.67
3
3.00
5
4.86
7
4.36
45
26
3.20
10
5.17
24
4.28
65
3.21
14
3.93
14
4.25
12
3.69
65
27
4.09
11
5.00
26
4.98
83
4.50
12
4.44
9
4.43
14
5.07
76
28
Training on computers technologies off-campus
3.50
8
4.15
13
4.02
47
4.50
4
4.50
4
4.25
4
4.03
33
29
Disability-related support services off-campus
4.00
12
4.48
23
3.33
46
4.00
10
4.17
6
4.40
10
3.59
49
30
2.57
7
5.29
7
5.10
10
3.40
10
4.50
2
31
Coordination between disability-related support services and school
4.33
6
5.11
9
4.61
18
4.17
12
5.25
4
32
4.22
9
4.56
18
4.43
14
4.70
10
5.50
2
3.80
5
2.66
29
3.61
41
4.29
41
To examine similarities and differences among students with different disabilities we conducted a one-way MANOVA
(multivariate analysis of variance) comparison on Students' Personal Situation and Cegep Environment Subscale scores (7
Disability Categories X 2 Subscales). The Subscale means included all disability related items. The Community and
Government Supports and Services Subscale was not included as there were not enough responses on this subscale for
meaningful analysis. The results revealed no significant difference among the 7 levels of the variable (category 8 (Other)
was not included).
90
A series of 2 MANOVAs on items in the Students' Personal Situation and in the Cegep Environment Subscale showed
significant differences among groups, Wilks’ Λ = 0.46, F(54,530) = 1.63, p=.004, Wilks’ Λ = 0.24, F(84,408) = 1.42,
p=.014, respectively.
One-way analysis of variance comparisons (ANOVAs) (7 Disability Categories) on Students' Personal Situation Subscale
items showed significant findings. Best seen in Table 46, these showed significant results on 3 of the 9 items that comprise
the Students' Personal Experiences Subscale: (1) students with learning disabilities/ADD felt that their previous educational
experiences (Item 7) was considerably less facilitating than did students with other impairments, (2) that good health (Item
8) was a facilitator for students with hearing impairments and with learning disabilities/ADD while this was an obstacle for
students with medical/neurological impairments, multiple disabilities, and mobility and hand impairments, and (3) that
while the scores of students in all disability groups was in the obstacle range for the item dealing with the impact of their
disability (Item 9), students with medical/neurological impairments felt that this was more of an obstacle than did students
with hearing impairments.
The ANOVAs on 6 of the 14 items on the Cegep Environment Subscale were significant. These are also presented in Table
46 and show that (1) students with medical/neurological impairments found that the level of difficulty of their courses (Item
10) posed the greatest obstacle, (2) and that their course schedules (Item 12) posed important difficulties for them, although
course schedules were seen as especially facilitating by students with psychological impairments or PDD, (3) that the
attitude of professors (Item 13) and (4) of non teaching staff (Item 14) were most problematic for students with
medical/neurological impairments and most facilitating for students with mobility and arm/hand impairments, (5) that the
availability of course materials (Item 18) was most facilitating for students with mobility and arm/hand impairments and
least facilitating for students with visual impairments, and (6) that the accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
(Item 22) was least facilitating for students with mobility or arm/hand impairments.
On Government and Community Supports and Services items 2 of the 9 items were significant: (1) both public
transportation (Item 26) and (2) the availability of adapted transport for students with disabilities (Item 30). They were both
especially problematic for students with multiple disabilities and mobility and hand/arm impairments, although public
transportation was least facilitating for students with visual impairments and adapted transportation also caused problems
for students with medical / neurological impairments.
91
Table 46
#
Item
Disablility Group
N
Mean
SD
ANOVA F test
7 Previous education experiences
4 Mobility and hand/arm impariment
5 Medical / neurological impairment
1 Visual impairment and blindness
2 Hearing impairment and Deafness
6 Psychological impairment / PDD
3 Learning disability/ADD
18
14
13
89
36
16
99
5.00
4.86
4.85
4.52
4.39
4.19
3.69
0.970
1.460
1.405
1.493
1.536
1.515
1.627
F(6,278) = 4.23, p=.000
8 Health
34
84
12
15
16
82
14
4.68
4.63
3.75
3.73
3.38
3.20
2.36
1.387
1.487
1.960
1.831
1.708
1.842
1.393
F(6,250) = 8.85, p=.000
9 Impact of my disability
36
16
96
82
15
14
14
3.33
2.88
2.47
2.41
2.40
2.21
2.14
1.352
1.455
1.248
1.369
1.242
1.122
0.864
F(6,266) = 3.05, p=.000
10 Level of difficulty of courses
16
38
16
88
103
14
3.88
3.55
3.38
3.03
2.87
2.71
1.258
1.572
1.258
1.264
1.160
0.825
F(6,285) = 4.45, p=.000
12 Course schedule
16
39
16
87
17
99
14
4.50
4.05
3.81
3.78
3.76
3.69
2.71
1.265
1.538
1.328
1.631
1.393
1.419
1.590
F(6,286) = 3.20, p=.005
13 Attitudes of professors
18
16
90
38
100
16
14
5.44
4.88
4.51
4.42
4.31
4.25
3.64
0.784
1.088
1.493
1.536
1.390
1.390
1.692
F(6,285) = 2.72, p=.014
18
85
16
32
13
92
14
5.50
5.16
5.00
4.91
4.85
4.67
4.57
0.618
1.100
0.966
1.027
1.068
1.259
1.284
F(6,263) = 2.43, p=.026
18
34
14
96
15
83
16
5.00
4.97
4.93
4.68
4.67
4.55
3.69
1.029
1.114
0.917
1.138
0.724
1.364
1.621
F(6,269) = 2.56, p=.020
22 Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
29
67
13
9
12
60
12
5.17
5.04
4.77
4.67
4.50
4.25
3.67
1.256
1.079
1.235
1.000
1.168
1.663
1.875
F(6,195) = 3.56, p=.002
24
65
12
14
65
14
10
5.17
4.28
4.25
3.93
3.69
3.21
3.20
1.341
1.746
1.545
1.385
2.023
2.119
2.098
F(6,197) = 3.01, p=.001
30 Availability of adapted transport for student with disabilities
7
10
2
10
29
7
5.29
5.10
4.50
3.40
2.66
2.57
0.756
1.595
2.121
2.366
1.798
1.813
F(5,59) = 4.73, p=.001
Cegep Environment
92
Cegep based disability service providers. Table 47 shows mean scores of disability service providers' importance ratings on
CEQ items, where 1 = not important and 5 = extremely important. The composition of a 4th Subscale - Service Provision which was present only on the campus based disability service provider version of the CEQ, can be seen in Table 47.
Table 47
Disability Service Providers' Importance Ratings on CEQ Items
Using the following scale, from your experience, indicate the level of importance of each item for the academic performance of Cegep
with disabilities. Think of students with disabilities in general. If you feel an item is not applicable, respond with N/A (not applicable).
1
2
3
4
5
[ N/A ]
Not
Slightly
Moderately
Extremely
Very Important
Not Applicable
Important
Important
Important
Important
Students’ Personal Situation
1. __3.21__Financial situation
2. __2.42__Paid employment
3. __3.98__Family situation
4. __3.93__Friends
5. __4.73__Level of personal motivation
6. __4.30__Study habits
7. __3.79__Previous education experiences
8. __4.26__Health
9. __3.70__Impact of their disability
Cegep Environment
10. __3.49__Level of difficulty of courses
11. __4.07__Course load
12. __3.53__Course schedule
13. __4.46__Attitudes of professors
14. __3.86__Attitudes of non-teaching staff (e.g., registration staff, financial aid staff)
15. __4.00__Attitudes of fellow students
16. __3.36__Availability of computers on campus
17. __2.96__Training on computer technologies on campus
18. __3.82__Availability of course materials
19. __2.91__Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities (e.g., clubs, sports, social activities)
20. __4.29__Willingness of professors to adapt courses to students’ needs
21. __4.22__Accessibility of building facilities (e.g., doorways, classrooms, labs)
22. __3.28__Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
23. __4.32__Availability of disability related services at the Cegep
24. __4.00__Availability of financial aid
25. __3.32__Availability of tutoring outside of the Cegep
26. __3.79__Public transportation
27. __3.19__Availability of computers off-campus
28. __2.94__Training on adapted computer technologies off-campus
29. __3.60__Disability related support services off-campus
30. __4.19__Availability of adapted transport for students with disabilities
31. __3.94__Coordination between disability related support services (e.g., attendant care, adapted transport) and school
32. __3.91__Availability of adaptations / technical aids at home (e.g., ramp, TDD)
Service Provision
33. __4.27__Budget allocated for disability services at the Cegep
34. __4.43__Availability of affordable diagnostic services (e.g., LD assessment) external to Cegep)
35. __4.21__Willingness of students to use suitable accommodations
36. __4.28__Students’ awareness of the impact of their disability
37. __4.37__Students’ ability to express their needs
38. __4.04__Students' choice of career
39. __4.28__Identification of students' individual needs by the disability service provider
40. __3.96__On-going support by the disability service provider
41. __4.00__Professors’ level of knowledge about disability services / accommodations
42. __4.48__Collaboration between professors and disability service providers
43. __4.30__Attitudes of the administration toward services provided to students with disabilities
93
Table 48 shows importance ratings in rank order for each subscale. The mean of importance scores was 3.87. Results on
Subscales (including disability specific items) indicate that Service Provision was seen as most important, followed by
Students' Personal Situation, Cegep Environment, and Government and Community Supports and Services. Results on a 1way ANOVA examining mean scores on the 4 Subscales shows a significant test result, F(3, 165) = 146.27, p=.000. Post hoc
tests show that the Service Provision score was significantly higher than scores on all other Subscales and that the Students'
Personal Situation Subscale was more important than the Government and Community Supports and Services Subscale.
Cegep scores did not differ significantly from Personal or Government and Community Supports and Services scores.
Table 48
Rank Order of Importance: Disability Service Providers
Overall
Rank
Rank
Within
Subscale
4.73
4.48
4.46
4.43
4.37
4.32
4.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
1
2
3
2
4
Personal
6 Study habits
20 Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs
39 Identification of students' individual needs by the disability service provider
4.30
4.29
4.28
8
9
10
2
3
5
Personal
36
33
8
21
35
30
11
38
15
24
41
3
40
31
4
32
14
18
7
26
9
29
12
10
16
25
22
1
27
17
28
19
2
4.28
4.27
4.26
4.22
4.21
4.19
4.07
4.04
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.98
3.96
3.94
3.93
3.91
3.86
3.82
3.79
3.79
3.70
3.60
3.53
3.49
3.36
3.32
3.28
3.21
3.19
2.96
2.94
2.91
2.42
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.5
19.5
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
6
7
3
4
8
1
5
9
6
2
10
4
11
3
5
4
7
8
6
5
7
6
9
10
11
7
12
8
8
13
9
14
9
Item #
5
42
13
34
37
23
43
Collaboration between professors and disability service providers
Availability of affordable diagnostic services (e.g., LD assessment) external to Cegep)
Students’ ability to express their needs
Attitudes of the administration toward services provided to students with disabilities
Students’ awareness of the impact of their disability
Budget allocated for disability services at the Cegep
Health
Willingness of students to use suitable accommodations
Course load
Students' choice of career
Professors’ level of knowledge about disability services / accommodations
Family situation
On-going support by the disability service provider
Friends
Course schedule
Financial situation
Paid employment
Subscales
Service Provision
Cegep Environment
Mean
4.85
3.83
3.77
3.66
1
2
3
4
Subscale of Item
N
SD
56
56
57
53
57
56
0.45
0.60
0.57
0.69
0.67
0.72
Service
56
57
56
0.69
0.65
0.65
Service
57
57
56
57
55
57
54
57
56
56
56
56
57
57
52
55
55
57
56
57
52
57
55
57
57
56
53
53
56
54
52
51
56
52
0.70
0.86
0.96
0.61
0.69
0.70
0.78
0.75
0.87
0.87
0.74
0.87
0.74
0.82
0.92
0.79
0.87
0.81
0.77
0.70
0.98
0.89
0.71
0.95
0.71
0.98
0.80
0.97
0.89
1.03
0.91
0.83
0.79
0.87
57
57
56
57
0.47
0.37
0.38
0.56
Service
Cegep
Service
Service
Cegep
Cegep
Service
Service
Personal
Cegep
Service
Community
Cegep
Service
Cegep
Community
Service
Personal
Service
Community
Personal
Community
Cegep
Cegep
Personal
Community
Personal
Community
Cegep
Cegep
Cegep
Community
Cegep
Personal
Community
Cegep
Community
Cegep
Personal
94
Table 49 shows "very important" CEQ items (i.e., score ≥ 4 on a 5-point scale) arranged in rank order of importance within
groupings. These indicate that 3 of the 9 Students’ Personal Situation items, 6 of the 14 Cegep Environment items, 2 of the
9 Government and Community Supports and Services items, and 10 of the 11 Service Provision items were seen as very
important.
Table 49
"Very Important" CEQ Items For Campus Based Disability Service Providers: Rank Ordering Within Groupings
Rank #
Item
Students’ Personal Situation
1
2
3
15
6
8
Study habits
Health
Cegep Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
13
23
20
21
11
15
Course load
1
2
30
24
Service Provision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
42
34
37
43
39
36
33
35
38
41
Availability of affordable diagnostic services (e.g., LD assessment) external to Cegep
Identification of students' individual needs by the disability service provider
95
Comparison Of Disability Service Providers' And Current Students' Ratings
We examined items seen by disability service providers as most important, mid-range in importance, and least important
and examined students' facilitator and obstacle scores. Results indicate that the correlation between importance ranks and
obstacle-facilitator ranks is not significant, r(30)=.215, p=.238, indicating a discrepancy between what was most important
to service providers and what was experienced as most difficult by current students with disabilities. Table 50 shows the
scores.
Table 50
Relationships Between Campus Based Disability Service Provider's Importance Scores And Students With Disabilities' Ratings Of Obstacles And Facilitators
Current Students With Disabilities
Type of Item
Item
Item
#
Rank Mean
N
Rank Mean
MOST IMPORTANT TO SERVICE PROVIDERS
5
13
23
6
20
8
21
30
Study habits
Health
disabilities
11 Course load
2 OF 11 ITEMS IN OBSTACLE RANGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4.73
4.46
4.32
4.30
4.29
4.26
4.22
4.19
56
57
56
57
56
57
55
54
Personal
Cegep
Cegep
Personal
Cegep
Personal
Cegep
Community
9
11
1
24
13
23
4
27
4.55
4.46
4.98
3.86
4.42
3.89
4.75
3.48
293
295
281
296
285
258
208
65
14%
12%
6%
23%
10%
25%
7%
42%
24%
31%
24%
37%
38%
30%
31%
14%
61%
57%
70%
40%
52%
45%
63%
45%
9
10.5
10.5
4.07
4.00
4.00
57
56
56
Cegep
Cegep
Community
31
10
21
3.04 296
4.47 287
3.98 168
37%
8%
24%
43%
38%
32%
20%
54%
45%
MID-RANGE OF IMPORTANCE TO SERVICE PROVIDERS
3
31
4
32
14
18
7
26
9
29
Family situation
Friends
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3.98
3.94
3.93
3.91
3.86
3.82
3.79
3.79
3.70
3.60
57
52
55
55
57
56
57
52
57
55
Personal
Community
Personal
Community
Cegep
Cegep
Personal
Community
Personal
Community
LEAST IMPORTANT TO SERVICE PROVIDERS
12
10
16
25
22
1
27
17
28
19
2
N
Neither
Major
Major
1
3
Obstacle Obstacle Nor Facilitator
2
Facilitator
% of
% of
Students % of Students Students
14
17
7
12
2
6
16
19
32
26
4.33
4.14
4.65
4.43
4.94
4.66
4.26
4.04
2.55
3.78
276
95
275
94
273
279
288
207
274
157
16%
21%
10%
20%
4%
5%
17%
24%
53%
27%
29%
27%
26%
16%
28%
38%
33%
27%
37%
32%
55%
52%
64%
64%
68%
57%
50%
50%
10%
41%
Course schedule
Financial situation
Paid employment
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3.53
3.49
3.36
3.32
3.28
3.21
3.19
2.96
2.94
2.91
2.42
57
57
56
53
53
56
54
52
51
56
52
Cegep
Cegep
Cegep
Community
Cegep
Personal
Community
Cegep
Community
Cegep
Personal
Subscale
Cegep Environment
1
2
3
3.84
3.77
3.66
57
56
57
Personal
Cegep
Community
25
30
8
22
5
28
3
15
18
20
29
3
1
2
3.79
3.16
4.59
3.95
4.68
3.46
4.89
4.30
4.05
4.03
3.24
291
295
272
157
203
243
233
184
114
208
160
20%
29%
10%
27%
10%
36%
10%
14%
22%
22%
36%
44%
54%
33%
28%
26%
30%
21%
38%
33%
29%
41%
35%
17%
57%
45%
64%
34%
69%
49%
45%
49%
24%
3.90 290
4.28 296
3.97 132
6%
1%
14%
67%
61%
50%
27%
38%
36%
Note. Boxed items highlight percentages of 50% and greater. Items with shading and box have a mean score in the obstacle range.
Major obstacle: score = 1 to 2.
1
2
3
Neither obstacle nor facilitator" score = 3 to 4
Major facilitator: score = 5 to 6
96
Results in Table 50 also show that the number 1 ranked facilitator, considered a facilitator by 70% of students, was the
availability of disability related services at the Cegep, an item among those seen as the most important by service providers.
The corresponding greatest obstacle, endorsed by 53% of students, was the impact of their disability; this item, however,
was only seen as being of intermediate importance by service providers. Table 50 also shows that among items rated among
the most important by disability service providers, 2 items had scores in the obstacle range: availability of adapted
transportation for people with disabilities and course load. Three items that were seen as among the least important by
disability service providers were seen as major obstacles by students with disabilities: their financial situation, paid
employment, and the level of difficulty of their courses.
Figures 13 and 14 illustrate some of these relationships for items rated as very important by disability service providers (i.e.,
rating = 4 to 5) and for items rated as major facilitators (score = 5 to 6) and major obstacles (score = 1 to 2) by current
students with disabilities.
Figure 13
Relationships Between Importance Scores Of Service Providers And Items Rated as Major Facilitator By Students With Disabilities
Facilitators
Item#
100%
5
61%
96%
13
57%
Service Providers
Very important
Students with disabilities
Much easier
91%
Health
8
45%
89%
Study habits
6
40%
89%
20
52%
89%
23
70%
89%
21
63%
84%
24
45%
81%
30
45%
81%
Family situation
3
55%
79%
Course load
11
20%
79%
15
54%
73%
32
64%
71%
18
57%
71%
31
52%
69%
Friends
4
64%
63%
7
50%
63%
14
68%
61%
9
10%
58%
26
50%
51%
29
41%
51%
10
17%
51%
Course schedule
12
35%
46%
16
57%
40%
22
64%
39%
27
69%
38%
Financial situation
1
34%
36%
25
45%
31%
17
49%
25%
28
45%
23%
19
49%
8%
Paid employment
2
24%
Note. Very important = score of 4 or 5 on the scale of importance. Facilitator = score of 5 or 6 on the scale of difficulty where 1 = much harder and 6 = much easier.
97
It can be seen in Figure 13 that three of the items rated very important by at least ½ of the campus based disability service
providers were seen as key facilitators by fewer than 20% of students with disabilities: course load, the impact of the
student's disability, and the level of difficulty of courses. Similarly, 3 items that at least ½ of the students with disabilities
indicated made their Cegep studies easier were seen as very important by fewer than 50% of campus based disability service
providers: the availability of computers both on and off-campus and the accessibility of Cegep physical education courses.
In Figure 14 it can be seen that 3 of the items rated very important by at least ½ of the campus based disability service
providers were seen as key obstacles by at least ⅓ of students with disabilities: the availability of adapted transport for people
with disabilities, a heavy course load, and the impact of students' disabilities. Data in the open-ended portion of this
investigation shows that the problem with paid employment is that students feel they are spending too much time working at
a job, but that this is necessary to enable them to stay in school.
Figure 14
Relationships Between Importance Scores Of Service Providers And Items Rated as Major Obstacles By Students With Disabilities
Obstacles
Item#
100%
5
96%
13
12%
91%
Health
8
25%
89%
Study habits
6
23%
89%
20
10%
89%
23
6%
89%
21
7%
84%
24
24%
81%
30
42%
81%
Family situation
3
16%
79%
Course load
11
37%
79%
15
8%
73%
32
20%
71%
18
5%
71%
31
21%
Service providers
Very important
Students with disabilities
Much harder
14%
69%
Friends
4
10%
63%
7
17%
63%
14
4%
61%
9
53%
58%
26
24%
51%
29
27%
51%
10
29%
51%
Course schedule
12
20%
46%
16
10%
40%
22
10%
39%
27
10%
38%
Financial situation
1
36%
36%
25
27%
31%
17
14%
25%
28
22%
23%
19
22%
8%
Paid employment
2
36%
Note. Very important = score of 4 or 5 on the scale of importance. Obstacle = score of 1 or 2 on the scale of difficulty where 1 = much harder and 6 = much easier.
98
We also tried to carry out a direct comparison of service providers' and current students' importance ratings by converting the
easier-harder ratings of students into importance scores. We did this by collapsing the easier-harder scores in the following
way. We made the assumptions that if an item was a major facilitator or a major obstacle (i.e., had a score of 1 (much harder)
or 6 (much easier)) that the item was very important. We transformed both of these scores by giving them a new "computed
importance" score of 3. Items with easy-difficult scores of 3 or 4 (i.e., slightly harder or easier) were given a score of 1. Items
in between (i.e., those with a rating of 5 or 2 - moderately easier or harder) we gave a score of 2. Table 51 shows the means
for students with disabilities and disability service providers. It can be seen in this Table, and in the nonsignificant correlation
coefficient, r(30)= .136, p=.458, that there is little in common between the two sets of scores.
Table 51
"Importance Scores:" Disability Service Providers And Students With Disabilities
Item #
5
13
23
6
20
8
21
30
11
15
24
3
31
4
32
14
18
7
26
9
29
12
10
16
25
22
1
27
17
28
19
2
Mean Rank
Study habits
Health
Course load
Family situation
Friends
Course schedule
Financial situation
Paid employment
4.73
1
4.46
2
4.32
3
4.30
4
4.29
5
4.26
6
4.22
7
4.19
8
4.07
9
4.00 10.5
4.00 10.5
3.98
12
3.94
13
3.93
14
3.91
15
3.86
16
3.82
17
3.79
18
3.79
19
3.70
20
3.60
21
3.53
22
3.49
23
3.36
24
3.32
25
3.28
26
3.21
27
3.19
28
2.96
29
2.94
30
2.91
31
2.42
32
N
56
57
56
57
56
57
55
54
57
56
56
57
52
55
55
57
56
57
52
57
55
57
57
56
53
53
56
54
52
51
56
52
Mean Rank
2.17
2.03
2.27
1.92
1.95
2.13
2.14
2.40
1.85
1.91
2.17
2.15
2.07
2.15
2.35
2.14
1.95
2.03
2.24
1.91
2.07
1.81
1.61
2.11
2.11
2.16
2.10
2.38
1.97
2.04
2.12
1.96
6
21
4
27
25
13
11
1
30
28
7
9
18
10
3
12
26
22
5
29
19
31
32
16
15
8
17
2
23
20
14
24
N
293
295
281
296
285
258
208
65
296
287
168
276
95
275
94
273
279
288
207
274
157
291
295
272
157
203
243
233
184
114
208
160
Diff. in Rank
-5
-19
-1
-23
-20
-7
-4
7
-21
-17.5
3.5
3
-5
4
12
4
-9
-4
14
-9
2
-9
-9
8
10
18
10
26
6
10
17
8
Note. Higher scores indicate greater importance. Maximum score for campus based disability service providers is 5.
Maximum score for students with disabilities is 3. Items that differed by 9 or more rank positions are boxed and highlighted.
99
Nevertheless, it can be seen in Table 52 that on the top 11 items of importance (as rated by the campus based disability
service providers) students and service providers agreed upon most (i.e., of the 11 items that were most important to
disability services, 5 were also in the top 11 of student rankings). Differences show that campus based disability service
providers felt that the attitude and willingness of professors to adjust their courses to students' needs were important as well
as students' study habits, health, and course load as well as the attitudes of other students. Students felt that the availability
of computers off-campus and of physical adaptations at home were important along with public transportation, the
accessibility of Cegep physical education courses, and their friends and family situation.
Table 52
Commonalities Between The Top Eleven "Importance" Scores: Campus Based Disability Service Providers And Students With
Disabilities
Service Providers
Study habits
Health
Course load
Students with Disabilities
100%
96%
89%
89%
89%
91%
89%
81%
79%
79%
84%
Family situation
Friends
Note . Boxed items are common to service providers and students with disabilities.
54%
59%
51%
51%
51%
42%
49%
42%
45%
40%
45%
100
Graduates. Three groups of graduates completed the CEQ and the Post Cegep Questionnaire which inquired about
graduates' current situation (i.e., questions related to whether they were continuing their studies, were holding a job, etc.):
graduates without disabilities, graduates with disabilities who were registered to receive disability related services, and
graduates with disabilities who did not register to receive disability related services.
CEQ: Graduates' Personal Situation. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine
the effect of the presence or absence of a disability on the variables on the Graduates' Personal Situation items that were
common to both graduates with and without disabilities. There was a significant difference between graduates with and
without a disability on the dependent measures, Wilks’ Λ = 0.86, F (8, 753) = 14.76, p < .001. Follow-up independent t-tests
were conducted. These showed that there were significant differences on Item 8 (Health) and Item 3 (Family). Mean scores of
graduates with disabilities showed that their health scores were significantly lower (M = 3.69, SD = 1.82) than those of
graduates without disabilities (M = 5.06, SD = 1.23), t (181) = 9.20, p < .001. Family also proved to be less of a facilitator for
graduates with disabilities (M = 3.99, SD = 1.60) than without disabilities (M = 4.66, SD = 1.46), t (1304) = 5.43, p < .001.
The means, standard deviations and independent t-test results for all items on the Personal Situation subscale are shown in
Table 53.
A series of two independent t-tests on the Students' Personal Subscale means showed that there was a significant difference
between graduates with and without disabilities both when the disability specific item was included in the mean for graduates
with disabilities as well as when this was excluded. Means and t-test results are available in Table 53. These show that the
overall personal situation of graduates with disabilities was less facilitating than that of graduates without disabilities.
We also examined the Graduates' Personal Situation variables of graduates in pre-university and career/technical programs
separately. A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of the presence or absence of a disability on the 7
variables on the Personal Situation subscale that were common to both graduates with and without disabilities in preuniversity programs. The test showed a significant difference, Wilks’ Λ = 0.87, F (8, 405) = 6.5, p < .001. A series of follow
up independent t-tests were conducted and the outcomes are shown in Table 54. As in the previous analysis, the means of
Item 3 (Family) and Item 8 (Health) were significantly different, with graduates with disabilities experiencing these aspects
of their Cegep experience as less facilitating. However, an additional item (Item 14: Friends) also showed a statistically
significant difference in means, with graduates with disabilities in pre-university programs (M = 4.50, SD = 1.37)
experiencing this aspect as less facilitating than graduates without disabilities (4.81, SD = 1.28). This item, however, was
not significant after a Bonferroni correction was applied to the alpha level. The difference in Personal Situation Subscale
means was also significant for graduates in pre-university programs. Means, standard deviations and t-test results can be
found in Table 54.
A MANOVA was also conducted for career/technical programs. The test showed a significant difference on the Personal
Situation variables, Wilks’ Λ = 0.82, F (8, 332) = 9.3, p < .001) between graduates with and without a disability. A series of
follow-up independent t-tests showed that the pattern for career/technical programs was consistent with the earlier analysis
(i.e., the Health and Family items showed a statistically significant difference, as did the Students' Personal Situation
Subscale mean). Results of the independent t-tests are shown in Table 55 for career/technical programs.
CEQ Cegep Environment. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the items common to
both graduates with and without disabilities to determine whether there was difference between the two groups on the Cegep
Environment items (13 variables). The MANOVA was not significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.99, F (13,469) = 0.45, p = .952. Because
of the importance of the items on this subscale we nevertheless carried out independent t-tests on the individual items. Results
showed a significant difference on Item 22 (Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses). Graduates with disabilities (M
= 4.43, SD = 1.48) had lower mean scores on this item than graduates without disabilities (M = 4.68, SD = 1.16) (see Table
53), although the difference was no longer significant after a Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha level .
An independent t-test on the overall Cegep Environment Subscale means showed no significant difference between
graduates with (M = 4.02, SD = 0.80) and without (M = 4.10, SD = 0.67) disabilities, t(211) = 1.55, p=.178) (see Table 53).
We again examined the Cegep Environment variables of graduates in pre-university and career/technical programs separately.
Means are available in Tables 54 and 55. A one-way MANOVA was conducted on the items common to both graduates with
and without disabilities to determine whether there was a difference between the two groups on the Cegep Environment items
(13 variables) for graduates in pre-university programs (see Table 54). The comparison was not statistically significant, Wilks’
Λ = 0.97, F (13, 264) = 0.55, p = .892. The difference in the Cegep Subscale means (0.03) was also not statistically
significant. Nevertheless, we conducted independent t-tests on individual items to examine trends in the pre-university data.
101
These show that scores on Item 22 (Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses) of graduates with and without
disabilities in pre-university programs differed, as was the case in the analysis on the whole sample of graduates. However, in
addition, scores on Item 12 (Course schedule) and Item 18 (Availability of course materials) were also different. Although the
score on Item 12 was below 4.0 for both groups, graduates with disabilities (M = 3.96, SD = 1.32) rated this item higher than
did graduates without disabilities (3.62, SD =1.34). Graduates with disabilities (M = 4.74, SD = 1.13) also rated Item 18
(Availability of course materials) higher than graduates without disabilities (M = 4.44, SD = 1.10). Given the nonsignificant
MANOVA, it was not surprising that after a Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha level none of these items were significantly
different.
The MANOVA on Cegep Environment scores of career/technical program graduates also was not significant, Wilks’ Λ =
0.93, F (13, 184) = 1.10, p = .366. When independent t-tests were done, the only item showing a difference in means was Item
20 (Willingness of professors to adapt courses to the student's needs). In this case, graduates with disabilities (M = 3.82, SD =
1.39) rated the item lower than graduates without disabilities (M = 4.29, SD = 1.35). Again, the difference was not significant
after a Bonferroni correction was applied. Table 55 shows the means, standard deviations and t-test outcomes for
career/technical programs.
CEQ: Government and Community Supports and Services. A one-way MANOVA was conducted on the 5 items common to
both graduates with and without disabilities to determine whether there was a difference between the two groups. Results
show that the comparison was not significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.95, F (5, 117) = 1.31, p = .348. The means and standard deviations
for each item on the subscale for both groups are shown in Table 53.
When Government and Community Supports Subscale averages were compared, again, there was no significant differences
between graduates with (M = 4.22, SD = 1.20) and without disabilities (M = 4.19, SD = 1.17). Details of the means, standard
deviations and independent t-test values can be found in Table 53.
The small number of responses on items on CEQ Government and Community Supports and Services items did not allow
for a meaningful MANOVA comparison. However, consistent with the earlier analysis, when independent t-tests were
performed for each of the 5 items there was no statistically significant difference between graduates with and without
disabilities. This was true for both the pre-university and the career/technical graduates (see Tables 54 and 55).
CEQ: Index of Difficulty (IDF). It can be seen in Table 53 that when IDF scores of graduates with and without disabilities
were compared there was a significant difference on the Index of Difficulty (IDF) for all graduates combined, as well as for
those graduating from career/technical and from pre-university programs. Graduates with disabilities had scores that were
lower than graduates without disabilities. The difference for pre-university graduates was only significant when the
disability specific items were included in the comparison (see Tables 53, 54, 55).
102
Table 53
CEQ: Comparing Graduates With And Without Disabilities On Item And Subscale Scores In All Programs And Sectors
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Item
Financial situation
Paid employment
Family
Friends
Study habits
Health
Impact of disability
Personal Situation Subscale (Exclude 9)
Personal Situation Subscale (Include 9)
Course load
Course schedule
Attitudes of fellow students
IT training Cegep
Accessibility of extracurricular activities
Accessibility of classrooms/labs etc
Availability of disability related services
Cegep Environment Subscale (Exclude 23)
Cegep Environment Subscale (Include 23)
Private tutoring
Public transport
Computer technologies training off-campus
Scheduling conflicts between disability related services
Availability of physical adaptations at home
Gov't and Community Supports & Services Subscale (Exclude 29-32)
Gov't and Community Supports & Services Subscale (Include 29-32)
Index of difficulty (Excluding disability specific Items)
Index of difficulty (Including disability specific Items)
N
161
131
162
169
180
176
167
160
With Disabilities
Mean
SD
3.60
1.68
3.27
1.53
3.99
1.60
4.71
1.40
4.75
1.41
4.23
1.43
4.55
1.33
3.69
1.82
Without Disabilities
N
Mean
SD
1125
3.86
1.64
953
3.44
1.44
1144
4.66
1.45
1214
4.87
1.23
1283
4.74
1.36
1284
4.37
1.38
1211
4.61
1.24
1090
5.06
1.23
t
df
Sig
Difference
-1.85
-1.24
-5.43
-1.37
0.05
-1.26
-0.60
-9.20
1284
1082
1304
206
1461
1458
1376
181
0.064
0.215
0.000
0.171
0.959
0.209
0.550
0.000
-0.26
-0.17
-0.67
-0.16
0.01
-0.14
-0.06
-1.37
1248
1248
1268
1274
1275
1278
1087
1257
1213
836
1212
819
1139
1067
1047
4.48
4.48
3.68
3.11
3.52
4.30
4.10
4.31
4.16
4.05
4.44
4.43
4.07
4.81
4.68
0.76
0.76
1.25
1.31
1.33
1.35
1.30
1.22
1.58
1.34
1.15
1.27
1.35
1.07
1.16
5.05
6.70
-0.77
-0.41
0.85
0.49
-0.13
-1.46
-1.37
-1.14
0.22
-1.47
-0.89
-1.64
-2.03
1423
4423
1440
1448
1449
1454
1232
205
201
130
195
122
1297
190
161
0.000
0.000
0.439
0.685
0.395
0.627
0.899
0.145
0.085
0.255
0.824
0.143
0.372
0.102
0.044
-0.34
-0.42
-0.08
-0.04
0.09
0.05
-0.01
-0.17
-0.25
-0.18
0.02
-0.24
-0.10
-0.18
-0.25
78
2.69
1.43
177
177
174
176
176
178
147
170
164
109
162
106
160
157
136
4.13
4.06
3.60
3.06
3.61
4.35
4.09
4.15
3.91
3.87
4.46
4.19
3.97
4.63
4.43
0.85
0.84
1.25
1.46
1.41
1.36
1.43
1.40
1.74
1.53
1.31
1.64
1.38
1.27
1.38
56
4.43
1.46
176
176
73
43
153
112
4.02
4.03
3.56
4.00
4.47
4.51
0.80
0.80
1.79
1.65
1.68
1.62
1258
1258
471
276
1059
822
4.10
4.10
3.93
3.96
4.60
4.59
0.66
0.67
1.76
1.48
1.55
1.62
1.55
1.18
-1.65
0.18
-0.99
-0.48
211
210
542
317
1210
932
0.178
0.238
0.099
0.860
0.323
0.630
-0.08
-0.08
-0.37
0.04
-0.13
-0.08
37
22
16
13
12
3.35
3.59
3.63
3.54
4.17
1.83
1.68
1.96
2.03
1.85
356
3.81
1.54
-1.69
391
0.091
-0.46
85
85
178
178
4.22
4.21
4.08
4.05
1.20
1.22
0.69
0.69
415
415
1280
1280
4.19
4.19
4.26
4.26
1.16
1.17
0.59
0.59
0.22
0.12
3.73
4.31
498
498
1456
1456
0.823
0.907
0.000
0.000
0.03
0.02
-0.18
-0.21
P<.05
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
103
Table 54
CEQ: Comparing Graduates With And Without Disabilities On Item And Subscale Scores In Pre-University Programs
With Disabilities
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Item
Financial situation
Paid employment
Family situation
Friends
Study habits
Health
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Course load
Course schedule
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
N
78
68
80
86
90
88
88
78
40
89
89
88
88
89
90
75
88
81
51
81
56
77
79
80
28
88
88
29
23
81
56
19
11
8
9
8
42
42
90
90
Mean
3.94
3.40
3.99
4.50
4.59
4.07
4.64
3.74
2.73
4.15
4.07
3.80
3.51
3.96
4.29
3.89
4.01
4.22
4.06
4.74
4.41
4.10
4.63
4.31
4.32
4.15
4.15
3.34
4.26
4.43
4.95
3.16
3.91
3.88
3.89
4.75
4.38
4.38
4.16
4.13
SD
1.60
1.52
1.61
1.37
1.49
1.40
1.30
1.90
1.60
0.79
0.79
1.24
1.34
1.32
1.31
1.48
1.52
1.64
1.41
1.13
1.36
1.32
1.22
1.42
1.52
0.68
0.69
1.74
1.54
1.75
1.38
1.86
1.87
1.96
2.03
1.28
1.11
1.15
0.62
0.63
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Difference
N
618
525
667
708
740
741
707
616
Mean
4.17
3.56
4.67
4.81
4.59
4.30
4.58
5.05
SD
1.56
1.40
1.42
1.28
1.43
1.44
1.26
1.26
-1.22
-0.88
-4.04
-2.10
-0.01
-1.41
0.38
-5.90
694
591
745
792
828
827
793
86
0.225
0.382
0.000
0.036
0.992
0.160
0.707
0.000
-0.23
-0.16
-0.69
-0.31
0.00
-0.23
0.05
-1.30
719
719
735
734
737
737
643
722
708
449
688
490
637
603
644
4.49
4.49
3.71
3.30
3.62
4.14
4.08
4.18
4.30
3.98
4.44
4.58
3.90
4.83
4.72
0.79
0.79
1.26
1.27
1.34
1.36
1.32
1.26
1.51
1.32
1.10
1.22
1.33
1.06
1.15
-3.83
-4.71
0.63
1.44
2.22
0.97
-1.15
-1.15
-0.43
0.40
2.31
-0.99
1.28
-1.34
-2.45
806
806
821
820
824
825
716
808
787
498
767
544
712
94
94
0.000
0.000
0.531
0.151
0.027
0.333
0.249
0.251
0.667
0.687
0.021
0.321
0.201
0.183
0.016
-0.34
-0.42
0.09
0.21
0.33
0.15
-0.19
-0.17
-0.08
0.08
0.30
-0.17
0.21
-0.19
-0.40
731
731
202
147
628
488
207
4.11
4.11
4.00
3.97
4.59
4.73
3.80
0.67
0.67
1.71
1.44
1.60
1.59
1.54
0.425
0.478
-1.94
0.88
-0.82
1.11
-1.71
817
817
229
168
707
73
224
0.671
0.633
0.054
0.379
0.415
0.272
0.089
0.03
0.04
-0.66
0.29
-0.16
0.22
-0.64
215
215
741
741
4.17
4.17
4.28
4.28
1.15
1.15
0.59
0.59
1.05
1.08
-1.81
-2.25
255
255
829
829
0.293
0.281
0.070
0.025
0.20
0.21
-0.12
-0.15
Sig p
<=.05
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
104
Table 55
CEQ: Comparing Graduates With And Without Disabilities On Item And Subscale Scores In Career/Technical Programs
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Item
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
t
-0.81
-0.27
-3.32
-0.62
-0.19
-0.05
-1.13
-6.64
df
577
478
545
94
618
616
570
88
Sig.
0.416
0.787
0.001
0.534
0.848
0.957
0.257
0.000
Mean
Difference
-0.16
-0.06
-0.61
-0.09
-0.03
-0.01
-0.17
-1.37
83
83
3.90
3.91
0.85
0.85
519
519
4.09
4.09
0.67
0.67
-1.93
-1.76
99
99
0.057
0.082
-0.19
-0.17
39
18
68
52
16
9
6
3
4
39
39
83
83
3.77
3.72
4.62
4.17
3.56
3.44
2.50
2.33
3.00
4.19
4.15
4.03
4.00
1.81
1.64
1.53
1.70
1.86
1.42
1.52
2.31
2.45
1.16
1.17
0.69
0.68
264
127
424
327
146
3.84
3.92
4.63
4.36
3.79
1.79
1.52
1.48
1.65
1.53
-0.25
-0.51
-0.05
-0.77
-0.48
301
143
490
377
17
0.806
0.607
0.960
0.440
0.636
-0.08
-0.20
-0.01
-0.19
-0.23
196
196
531
531
4.19
4.19
4.24
4.24
1.19
1.19
0.59
0.59
0.02
-0.16
-2.86
-3.26
55
55
612
612
0.981
0.872
0.004
0.001
0.00
-0.03
-0.21
-0.23
N
501
422
469
499
535
535
497
467
Mean
SD
3.49
1.65
3.32
1.48
4.65
1.50
4.96
1.13
4.96
1.23
4.45
1.30
4.65
1.22
5.09
1.20
Course load
Course schedule
Financial situation
Paid employment
Family situation
Friends
Study habits
Health
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
With Disabilities
Mean
SD
3.32
1.69
3.26
1.54
4.04
1.57
4.87
1.42
4.93
1.26
4.45
1.41
4.48
1.37
3.71
1.75
2.71
1.17
4.16
0.85
4.10
0.84
3.39
1.23
2.63
1.45
3.30
1.41
4.40
1.41
4.28
1.35
4.29
1.28
3.62
1.80
3.75
1.66
4.18
1.41
4.09
1.79
3.82
1.39
4.61
1.34
4.55
1.31
4.54
1.41
N
78
58
78
79
85
83
75
77
34
83
83
82
84
82
83
67
78
78
55
78
46
78
75
53
24
521
521
525
532
530
533
436
527
497
381
516
322
494
457
396
4.46
4.46
3.62
2.84
3.39
4.52
4.14
4.50
3.95
4.13
4.43
4.21
4.29
4.78
4.60
0.72
0.72
1.23
1.32
1.31
1.32
1.27
1.13
1.64
1.35
1.20
1.31
1.35
1.09
1.18
-3.40
-4.16
-1.58
-1.35
-0.52
-0.75
0.88
-1.49
-1.63
-1.64
-1.51
-0.47
-2.85
-1.16
-0.28
602
602
605
614
610
614
501
603
573
65
95
52
570
530
447
0.001
0.000
0.114
0.176
0.603
0.453
0.379
0.137
0.104
0.106
0.134
0.643
0.005
0.245
0.781
-0.30
-0.36
-0.23
-0.21
-0.08
-0.12
0.15
-0.21
-0.33
-0.38
-0.25
-0.13
-0.47
-0.16
-0.05
Sig
p<=.05
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
105
Comparison of CEQ scores of graduates with disabilities who registered and those who did not register for disability related
services. The sample consisted of 24 graduates who registered for disability related services provided by their college and a
further 158 graduates who self-identified on the questionnaire as having a disability, but did not register for services. Due to the
small number of graduates in the registered category it was not possible to conduct meaningful MANOVA comparisons. Instead,
independent t-tests were performed for each Subscale and item score on the CEQ. The means, standard deviations and test
results for items with significant findings are shown in summary form in Table 56. Details for all items and test results can be
found in Table 57.
Table 56
Summary Comparison Of Graduates With Disabilities Who Registered For Services And Who Did Not Register
#
Item
*Personal Situation Subscale
Mean
4.07
3.94
Unregistered
N
>3.5
153
77.1%
<3.5
17.6%
Mean
4.51
4.56
152
76.3%
21.7%
Gov't & Community Supports & Services Subscale 4.16
69
66.7%
26.1%
Index of Difficulty
3.99
154
80.5%
18.2%
4.66
156
80.1%
19.9%
12 Course schedule
3.50
152
52.0%
4.11
125
68.8%
16 Availability of computers on campus
3.73
142
56.3%
4.38
141
23 Availability of disability related services at the
Cegep
3.97
34
5 Level of personal motivation
Registered
Sig
N
>3.5
<3.5 p <.05
24
83.8% 12.5%
*
24
95.8% 4.2%
*
4.39
16
75.0% 18.8%
4.43
24
100%
0.0%
*
5.33
24
95.8% 4.2%
*
48.0%
4.33
24
70.8% 29.2%
*
31.2%
4.36
22
86.4% 13.6%
*
43.7%
5.05
22
90.9% 9.1%
*
78.7%
21.3%
5.05
21
90.5% 9.5%
*
78.7%
21.3%
5.14
23
99.5% 4.5%
*
*Excludes disability specific Item 9.
Note. Except for the Personal Situation Subscale, comparisons include disability related item.
Table 56 shows the means as well as the percentage of graduates whose scores fell below 3.5 on the 6 point scale (a score that
is toward the difficult end of the scale) and the percentage that fell above 3.5 (a score that is toward the facilitator end of the
scale). This was done for the subscale means and for items that showed a statistically significant difference on the independent
t-tests. The comparisons show that the differences between the registered and unregistered graduates with disabilities are
largely related to Cegep Environment items. Significant differences were found for the following items: Course schedule (Item
11); Attitudes of non-teaching staff (Item 14); Availability of computers on campus (Item 16); Availability of course materials
(Item 18); Availability of disability related services at the Cegep (Item 23). On the Cegep Environment Subscale 76.3% of the
scores of unregistered graduates averaged above 3.50 compared to 95.8% of the scores of registered graduates. The five Cegep
Environment items that differed showed that graduates who registered had a higher proportion of scores above 3.5 than
unregistered graduates. Item 5 on the Personal Situation questions (Level of personal motivation) also showed a statistically
significant difference between graduates who were and who were not registered. This suggests that graduates with disabilities
who registered with their disability service providers tended to report higher levels of personal motivation and experienced the
Cegep Environment as more facilitating compared to graduates who did not register.
An analysis was also undertaken to determine whether there was a significant difference between registered and unregistered
graduates on the 3 Subscales. In this case the sample sizes permitted us to carry out a one-way MANOVA comparison.
Subscale means were compared including the disability related items. The test showed a significant difference between the
registered and unregistered graduates, Wilks’ Λ = 0.85, F (3, 78) = 4.72, p = .004.
Since the overall MANOVA was significant, follow-up independent t-tests were undertaken. Table 57 shows that there was a
significant difference on the Cegep Environment Subscale (registered: M = 4.56, SD = 0.81; unregistered: M = 3.94, SD = 0
.81). The overall difference in the subscale mean was 0.62, with registered graduates finding the Cegep Environment more
facilitating than unregistered graduates, t(174) = 3.63, p < .001).
Étudiants ayant des incapacités aux cégep
106
Table 57
CEQ Item Means Of Registered And Unregistered Graduates With Disabilities
Unregistered
Registered
Mean
3.56
Std. Deviation
Test Results
Mean
3.89
Std. Deviation
1.85
t
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.422
Mean
Difference
0.33
1
Financial situation
N
142
1.66
N
19
0.81
df
159
2
Paid employment
116
3.24
1.51
15
3.53
1.73
0.69
129
0.489
0.29
3
Family situation
140
3.91
1.62
22
4.45
1.47
1.47
160
0.142
0.54
Friends
146
4.66
1.43
23
5.00
1.21
1.07
167
0.286
0.34
5
156
4.66
1.46
24
5.33
0.82
2.21
178
0.029
0.67
6
Study habits
152
4.18
1.45
24
4.54
1.32
1.16
174
0.248
0.36
7
146
4.53
1.36
21
4.67
1.15
0.43
165
0.671
0.13
8
Health
139
3.60
1.82
21
4.29
1.76
1.61
158
0.110
0.68
4
9
59
2.71
1.30
19
2.63
1.80
-0.21
76
0.833
-0.08
153
153
151
4.07
4.02
3.54
0.84
0.83
1.24
24
24
23
4.51
4.33
4.00
0.82
0.86
1.28
2.41
1.68
10
1.67
175
175
172
0.017
0.091
0.097
0.31
0.46
11
Course load
153
2.98
1.43
23
3.61
1.56
1.94
174
0.054
0.63
12
Course schedule
152
3.50
1.40
24
4.33
1.31
2.73
174
0.007
0.83
13
154
4.31
1.36
24
4.67
1.37
1.21
176
0.228
0.36
14
0.44
125
3.94
1.45
22
4.95
1.00
3.17
145
0.002
1.02
15
148
4.11
1.44
22
4.36
1.18
0.77
168
0.440
0.25
16
142
3.73
1.77
22
5.05
1.00
3.40
162
0.001
1.31
17
96
3.79
1.56
13
4.46
1.20
1.49
107
0.140
0.67
18
141
4.38
1.32
21
5.05
1.12
2.22
160
0.028
0.67
12
4.83
1.53
1.45
104
0.149
0.73
19
94
4.11
1.64
20
137
3.88
1.39
23
4.48
1.27
1.92
158
0.056
0.60
21
141
4.63
1.31
16
4.63
0.89
-0.02
155
0.985
-0.01
22
124
4.44
1.39
12
4.25
1.22
-0.46
134
0.643
-0.19
23
34
3.97
1.57
22
5.14
0.94
3.14
54
0.003
1.17
24
Cegep Environment Subscale (Exclude Q23)
Cegep Environment Subscale (Include Q23)
152
152
62
3.94
3.94
3.58
0.81
0.81
1.78
24
24
11
4.51
4.56
3.45
0.52
0.81
1.92
3.37
3.63
-0.21
174
174
71
0.001
0.000
0.831
0.57
0.62
-0.13
25
36
3.89
1.60
7
4.57
1.90
1.00
41
0.322
0.68
26
136
4.46
1.67
17
4.53
1.81
0.15
151
0.879
0.07
27
97
4.40
1.64
15
5.20
1.26
1.80
110
0.075
0.80
28
35
3.43
1.85
2
2.00
0.00
-1.08
35
0.289
-1.43
29
17
3.47
1.88
5
4.00
0.71
0.61
20
0.549
0.53
30
12
3.75
1.82
4
3.25
2.63
-0.43
14
0.674
-0.50
31
9
3.78
1.92
4
3.00
2.45
-0.62
11
0.546
-0.78
10
0.519
0.74
32
7
3.86
1.68
5
4.60
2.19
0.67
69
4.17
1.24
16
4.43
1.02
0.77
83
0.442
0.26
69
4.16
1.26
16
4.39
1.06
0.88
83
0.509
0.23
154
4.02
0.70
24
4.50
0.37
3.30
54
0.000
0.48
154
3.99
0.71
24
4.43
0.37
2.95
54
0.000
0.44
Sig
p<=.05
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
107
When the disability specific item (Item 9 – Impact of my disability) was included the difference (0.31) on the Personal
Situation Subscale (registered: M = 4.33, SD =0.86; unregistered: M = 4.02, SD = .83) was not significant, t(175) = 1.68, p
=0.091. However, when Item 9 (Impact of my disability) was removed from the Subscale mean, the results were significant,
t(175) = 2.41, p = 0.02). Inclusion of this item had a disproportional effect in lowering the scores of the registered group as
nearly 100% of individuals in the sample answered this question, whereas only 38% (59) of the unregistered group replied.
This low response among the unregistered group suggests that a large proportion of unregistered graduates did not feel the
question applied to them. The overall average difference when this item is excluded was 0.44, with registered graduates
experiencing their overall personal situation as more facilitating than did the unregistered participants. Independent t-tests
on the individual items contributing to the Personal Subscale average indicate that the Level of personal motivation score
(Item 5), although high for both groups, was significantly lower (0.67) for unregistered (M = 4.66, SD = 1.46) compared to
registered graduates (M = 5.33, SD = 0.82), t(178) = 2.21, p= 0.03. It can be seen in Table 57 that there were no significant
differences either on Government and Community Supports and Services individual item or Subscale scores.
An Index of Difficulty (IDF) was calculated for each graduate by averaging all questionnaire items. Only graduates who
replied to at least 50% of the items (excluding the disability specific items) were included in the IDF calculations. The IDF
was then calculated both including and excluding disability related items. The means and standard deviations are shown in
Tables 56 and 57. Results indicate that the registered graduates had significantly higher scores than unregistered graduates,
t(54)= 3.30, p=.000, and t(54) =2.95, p=.000, for comparisons where disability specific items were excluded and included,
respectively.
Comparing IDF scores of nondisabled graduates with those of graduates with disabilities who were, and those who were
not registered to receive disability related services. Scores of these three groups were examined using one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) comparisons. Disability specific items were excluded. The independent variable (Group) consisted of
three levels (Registered, Unregistered, No Disability). The dependent variable was the IDF score. The ANOVA showed a
significant difference among the three groups, F (2, 1455) = 13.80, p < 0.001. Because Levine's test of equality of variances
among groups was significant, Dunnet’s C test was used to evaluate the pair-wise differences. These showed significant
differences on all pair-wise comparisons. It can be seen in Table 58 that the registered group had higher (i.e., more
facilitative) IDF means (M = 4.50, SD = 0.37) than the nondisabled group (M = 4.26, SD = 0.59). Unregistered graduates
with disabilities had the lowest IDF mean (M = 4.02, SD = 0.70), indicating that they found their experience less facilitative
than the other two groups.
Table 58
CEQ Index of Difficulty Scores (IDF): Registered And Unregistered Graduates With Disabilities And Nondisabled Graduates
Unregistered Graduates
With Disabilities
Registered Graduates
With Disabilities
Nondisabled Graduates
Mean
N
>3.5
<3.5
Mean
N
>3.5
<3.5
Mean
N
>3.5
<3.5
Index of difficulty
(Excluding disability
specific Items)
4.02
154
81.5%
17.2%
4.50
24
100%
0.0%
4.26
1280
89.8%
9.5%
Index of difficulty
(Including disability
specific Items)
3.99
154
80.5%
18.2%
4.43
24
100%
0.0%
4.26
1280
89.8%
9.5%
It is interesting to note that when disability specific items were included in the IDF, there was still a significant difference
among the three groups of graduates, F (2, 1455) = 4.22, p = 0.015. In this case there was, however, only one difference on
the post-hoc comparisons: the difference between registered and nondisabled graduates was no longer significant. The
inclusion of disability related items tended to lower the scores for both groups of graduates with disabilities, and reduce the
difference in means between nondisabled graduates and registered graduates with disabilities. The results on IDF scores
where the disability related items were excluded suggest that registered graduates with disabilities view aspects of their
experiences that are common to graduates with and without disabilities as more facilitating.
On the Index of Difficulty, 100% of registered graduates had means of 3.5 or over compared to slightly more than 80% of
non-registered graduates with disabilities and 90% of nondisabled graduates (see Table 58).
108
Rank order of CEQ items for graduates with and without disabilities. To compare the aspects of their experiences that were
perceived as easiest and hardest, CEQ item means of graduates with and without disabilities were ranked from highest (i.e.,
facilitator) to lowest (i.e., obstacle). Only the 26 items common to both graduates with and without disabilities were ranked.
However, the disability specific items are included in the list so their position relative to the common items could be seen.
These rankings are shown in Table 59. When we correlated the ranks of the 2 groups of graduates the Spearman-Brown
correlation coefficient was highly significant, r(24)=.809, p=.000, showing that rankings of graduates with and without
disabilities were closely related.
Table 59
Rank Order of CEQ Items For Graduates With And Without Disabilities
Graduates
With Disabilities
# Item
5
4
21
7
27
26
18
23
22
23
6
19
32
15
14
25
3
20
16
17
8
30
12
1
10
29
24
31
28
2
11
9
N
180
Mean
4.75
169
157
167
112
153
162
56
136
178
176
106
12
170
147
43
162
4.71
4.63
4.55
4.51
4.47
4.46
4.43
4.43
4.35
4.23
4.19
4.17
4.15
4.09
4.00
3.99
160
Friends
Study habits
Graduates
Rank N Mean Rank Diff. in Rank
1 1283 4.74
4
-3
2 1214 4.87
2
0
3 1067 4.81
3
0
4 1211 4.61
7
-3
5
822 4.59
9
-4
6 1059 4.60
8
-2
7 1212 4.44
10
-3
8
9
10
11
1047
1278
1284
819
4.68
4.30
4.37
4.43
5
14
12
11
3
-5
-2
0
12
13
14
15
1257
1087
276
1144
4.31
4.10
3.96
4.66
13
16
19
-1
-3
-5
6
9
3.97
16
1139
4.07
164
109
3.91
3.87
17
18
1213
836
4.16
4.05
17
15
18
-1
2
0
Health
160
3.69
19
1090
5.06
1
18
Course schedule
Financial situation
Paid employment
Course load
16
176
161
174
22
73
13
37
131
176
78
3.63
3.61
3.60
3.60
3.59
3.56
3.54
3.35
3.27
3.06
2.69
20
21
22
1275
1125
1268
3.52
3.86
3.68
24
21
23
-4
0
-1
23
471
3.93
20
3
24
25
26
356
953
1274
3.81
3.44
3.11
22
25
26
2
0
0
Family
Note. Items that differed by 9 or more places are highlighted and boxed.
109
Not surprisingly, it can be seen in Table 59 that for graduates with disabilities the item that ranked as the greatest obstacle
(i.e., had the lowest mean score) was Item 9 (Impact of my disability). Although Item 8 (Health) ranked first (facilitator) for
graduates without disabilities it ranked 19th for graduates with disabilities. Item 3 (Family situation) also ranked much lower
(15th) for graduates with disabilities than for graduates without disabilities (6th). These are also the items that showed a
statistically significant difference between the two groups, with graduates with disabilities perceiving these aspects of their
experience as less facilitating. Apart from these two items, however, there was a considerable degree of similarity between
the two groups. For example, Item 11 (Course load) and Item 2 (Paid employment) ranked 25th and 26th for both groups. In
addition Item 5 (Level of personal motivation), Item 4 (Friends) and Item 21 (Accessibility of building facilities) ranked in
the top 4 for both groups. Items ranking in the bottom seven (least facilitating) for graduates with disabilities also ranked in
the bottom seven for graduates without disabilities.
Rank order of CEQ items for registered and unregistered graduates with disabilities. In Table 60 item means were ranked
from highest to lowest to compare aspects that made studies easier and harder for graduates with disabilities who registered
and those who did not register for disability related services. Mean scores were ranked including the disability specific
items. However, items where there were fewer than 10 responses in either group were not included. The Spearman-Brown
correlation coefficient was highly significant, r(24)=.704, p=.000, showing that rankings of the two groups of graduates
were closely related.
Not surprisingly, Item 9 (Impact of my disability) ranked lowest for both groups. Of the bottom seven items, six were
common to both groups. However, Item 23 (Availability of disability related services at the Cegep) ranked near the top of
the list (3rd) for registered graduates but only 13th for unregistered graduates. This indicates that those graduates who
registered for services found that it was one of the main factors that made their Cegep studies easier. Item 16 (Availability
of computers on campus) and Item 22 (Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses ) also showed large differences in
rankings. Item 16 (Availability of computers on campus) ranked 5th for registered graduates compared to 18th for
unregistered graduates. Item 22 (Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses) ranked higher for unregistered (6th)
graduates than for registered graduates (20th).
110
Table 60
Rank Order Of CEQ Items For Registered And Unregistered Graduates With Disabilities
#
Item
5
27
23
18
16
4
14
19
13
7
21
6
26
20
17
3
15
12
8
22
10
1
11
2
24
9
Friends
Study habits
Family situation
Course schedule
Health
Financial situation
Course load
Paid employment
30
28
31
29
32
Items where n < 10 for at least one group
25
Not Registered
N
156
97
34
141
142
146
125
94
154
146
141
152
136
137
96
140
148
152
139
124
151
142
153
116
62
59
Mean
4.66
4.40
3.97
4.38
3.73
4.66
3.94
4.11
4.31
4.53
4.63
4.18
4.46
3.88
3.79
3.91
4.11
3.50
3.60
4.44
3.54
3.56
2.98
3.24
3.58
2.71
12
35
9
17
7
36
3.75
3.43
3.78
3.47
3.86
3.89
Rank
2
7
13
8
18
1
14
12
9
4
3
10
5
16
17
15
11
23
19
6
22
21
25
24
20
26
Registered
N
24
15
22
21
22
23
22
12
24
21
16
24
17
23
13
22
22
24
21
12
23
19
23
15
11
19
4
2
4
5
5
7
Mean
5.33
5.20
5.14
5.05
5.05
5.00
4.95
4.83
4.67
4.67
4.63
4.54
4.53
4.48
4.46
4.45
4.36
4.33
4.29
4.25
4.00
3.89
3.61
3.53
3.45
2.63
Rank Diff in Rank
1
-1
2
-5
3
-10
4
-4
5
-13
6
5
7
-7
8
-4
9
0
10
6
11
8
12
2
13
8
14
-2
15
-2
16
1
17
6
18
-5
19
0
20
14
21
-1
22
1
23
-2
24
0
25
5
26
0
3.25
2.00
3.00
4.00
4.60
4.57
Note. Items that differed by 9 or more places are highlighted and boxed.
111
Comparisons of CEQ means by disability type. To determine whether there were differences in CEQ scores related to
graduates' impairments, disability categories were combined. This resulted in 7 impairment categories. The number of
graduates who fell in each of the categories is shown in Table 16. Item and Subscale means for the different disability
classifications are shown in Table 61.
A MANOVA (7 Disability Categories X 2 Subscales) revealed no significant difference among the 7 levels of the variable
on the Personal Situation and Cegep Environment Subscale scores, Wilks’ Λ = 0.90, F (12,332) = 1.43, p = .149. The
Subscale means included all disability items. The Community and Government Supports subscale was not included as there
were not enough responses on the Subscale for meaningful analysis.
To examine trends we carried out a series of one-way ANOVAs (7 Disability Categories) on the 3 Subscale scores as well
as on Index of Difficulty scores. None of these were significant. Means, F values and significance levels associated with the
ANOVAs are shown in Table 62. A series of one-way ANOVAs (7 Disability Categories) was also carried out to evaluate
whether there were any differences in CEQ item means among the 7 disability classification groups. Results of the
ANOVAs are shown in Table 63. Items 28 to 32 of the Government and Community Supports items could not be included
due to the small numbers of graduates responding to these items. Results indicate a significant difference only on Item 5
(Level of personal motivation), F (6,173) = 2.45, p = .024, and on Item 8 (Health), F (6,153) = 5.52, p<0.001. After
applying a Bonferroni correction to the alpha level only the health item remained significant. A post hoc test showed that
graduates with a Learning Disability/ADD and those with Visual impairments had higher scores on this item that graduates
with Medical and with Psychological impairments.
112
Table 61
CEQ Means by Disability Category
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Financial situation
Paid employment
Family
Friends
Study habits
Health
Impact of disability
1 Learning/ADD
N
M
SD
15
3.93
1.91
13
3.15
1.63
16
4.31
1.54
16
5.38
0.96
18
5.56
0.62
18
4.22
1.22
18
4.39
1.20
16
4.81
1.38
13
2.77
1.09
N
31
26
29
29
33
33
32
30
14
17
4.50
0.65
33
Course load
Course schedule
Attitudes of fellow students
IT training Cegep
Accessibility of extracurricular activities
Willingness of professors to adapt courses
to my needs
Accessibility of classrooms/labs etc
Accessibility of Cegep physical education
courses
17
4.35
0.64
33
17
18
18
18
17
17
16
10
18
8
4.06
3.11
3.89
4.11
4.18
3.94
4.25
4.20
4.56
4.75
1.34
1.41
1.41
1.28
1.42
1.34
1.65
1.40
0.92
1.04
15
4.20
12
4.50
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Private tutoring
Public transport
Availability of adapted transportation for
people with disabilities
Scheduling conflicts between disability
related services
Availability of physical adaptations at home
Government & Community Supports &
Services Subscale (Exclude 39-42)
Government & Community Supports &
Services Subscale (Include 39 - 42)
Index of difficulty (Excluding disability
specific Items)
Index of difficulty (Including disability
specific Items)
2 Medical
M
3.26
3.54
4.31
4.79
5.06
4.36
4.56
3.00
2.71
3 Psychological
M
SD
3.26
1.80
2.81
1.49
3.54
1.46
4.18
1.54
4.41
1.67
4.05
1.66
5.11
1.05
2.82
1.85
2.20
1.06
N
40
33
39
42
45
44
44
37
7
4 Visual
M
3.88
3.15
4.03
4.76
4.58
4.32
4.25
4.54
3.29
SD
1.54
1.33
1.61
1.43
1.41
1.41
1.46
1.86
1.50
N
9
8
8
9
9
9
7
7
5
5 Hearing
M
SD
3.56
1.94
3.75
1.98
4.13
1.36
4.89
0.93
5.44
0.73
4.89
1.17
4.43
0.98
4.14
1.57
2.60
2.07
N
22
19
24
24
24
24
20
21
13
0.93
44
4.24
0.91
9
4.43
0.79
24
4.20
0.92
10
3.94
0.91
44
4.24
0.91
9
4.26
0.66
24
4.12
0.91
10
3.83
0.61
3.47
2.69
3.63
4.50
4.17
3.86
3.81
4.15
4.26
3.70
1.08
1.34
1.23
1.36
1.56
1.57
1.79
1.46
1.63
1.99
45
44
44
45
31
43
42
23
42
26
3.47
2.98
3.27
4.29
3.68
4.42
3.76
3.91
4.31
4.35
1.27
1.55
1.42
1.44
1.54
1.28
1.83
1.68
1.20
1.44
8
8
9
9
9
8
9
5
7
5
3.50
3.63
4.22
4.56
3.89
4.13
3.56
3.40
4.29
4.20
1.20
1.77
1.56
1.01
1.36
1.25
1.51
1.14
1.11
0.45
24
24
24
24
19
24
20
14
21
16
3.79
3.63
3.96
4.63
4.32
4.08
4.05
3.71
4.62
4.00
1.56
1.56
1.40
1.41
1.34
1.72
1.85
1.54
1.32
2.16
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
4
6
5
3.20
3.10
3.11
4.22
5.00
4.00
4.67
3.25
4.83
4.80
1.03
1.37
1.76
1.39
0.71
1.50
1.73
2.06
1.17
0.84
35
4.14
1.26
40
3.85
1.48
8
4.38
1.06
23
3.83
1.44
9
3.56
1.67
38
4.95
1.23
43
4.21
1.30
6
4.33
1.03
22
4.50
1.41
7
5.00
0.82
SD
1.59
1.48
1.61
1.29
1.20
1.22
1.27
1.26
1.20
N
35
27
37
39
41
38
37
39
20
4.13
0.65
40
3.80
4.07
0.66
40
3.71
32
33
32
33
27
32
31
26
29
23
3.69
3.03
3.63
4.18
4.00
4.31
3.84
3.69
4.76
4.30
1.18
1.33
1.45
1.40
1.36
1.18
1.66
1.59
1.27
1.52
38
39
40
40
35
37
37
27
39
23
1.08
30
3.93
1.53
1.09
29
4.97
1.27
6 Multiple
M
SD
4.05
1.62
3.53
1.65
4.00
1.89
4.71
1.57
4.54
1.56
4.38
1.50
4.60
1.50
3.62
1.77
3.15
1.86
N
9
5
9
10
10
10
9
10
6
7 Other
Mean
3.33
3.80
3.89
5.10
4.30
3.10
4.00
4.10
2.50
SD
1.58
1.92
1.69
1.10
1.25
1.37
1.58
1.73
1.97
0.53
13
4.23
1.17
28
4.61
1.55
31
4.68
1.22
38
4.26
1.22
4
5.00
0.82
16
3.94
1.69
6
4.67
1.97
12
17
17
8
4
13
8
3
2
5.00
4.14
4.19
3.75
5.00
4.77
5.25
3.67
3.50
1.13
0.65
0.65
1.28
1.15
1.17
0.89
1.53
2.12
8
33
33
13
6
31
24
6
3
4.25
4.04
4.05
2.92
4.50
4.48
4.67
3.33
4.00
1.58
0.82
0.82
1.85
1.05
1.65
1.43
1.97
1.00
12
40
40
15
8
36
29
11
6
4.50
4.00
4.01
3.33
3.75
4.17
4.10
4.00
3.67
1.38
0.71
0.71
1.80
2.49
1.90
1.92
2.19
2.25
5
44
44
17
9
39
24
8
2
4.00
3.91
3.91
4.06
3.44
4.38
4.25
3.25
3.50
2.12
0.95
0.95
1.98
1.33
1.55
1.54
1.83
2.12
5
9
9
7
5
9
7
3
3
4.40
4.13
4.13
3.57
3.60
5.44
4.43
2.33
4.00
1.52
0.64
0.61
1.40
1.95
0.53
1.51
0.58
0.00
11
24
24
9
9
19
17
6
6
4.18
4.07
4.07
3.33
4.22
4.11
4.88
2.67
3.17
1.72
0.81
0.83
2.06
1.56
2.13
1.76
1.63
2.04
3
9
9
4
2
6
3
0
0
4.00
4.07
4.07
4.50
4.00
5.83
5.33
1.00
0.87
0.86
1.73
1.41
0.41
0.58
1
5.00
.
3
3.67
1.15
3
4.33
2.89
2
3.50
2.12
0
6
2.67
1.97
1
6.00
.
1
5.00
.
3
3.67
1.53
2
3.50
3.54
1
5.00
.
0
5
2.80
2.49
1
4.00
.
1
5.00
.
1
2.00
.
1
1.00
.
2
5.00
0.00
2
2.50
2.12
5
5.40
0.89
0
11
4.94
0.74
16
4.05
1.20
18
3.73
1.30
19
4.40
1.29
8
4.17
0.95
10
4.15
1.22
3
4.72
1.25
11
4.94
0.77
16
3.99
1.21
18
3.78
1.34
19
4.40
1.29
8
4.11
0.92
10
4.04
1.34
3
4.72
1.25
18
4.32
0.45
33
4.08
0.66
40
3.94
0.71
45
4.04
0.82
9
4.23
0.47
24
4.14
0.67
9
4.13
0.53
18
4.30
0.46
33
4.06
0.67
40
3.91
0.72
45
4.03
0.81
9
4.16
0.41
24
4.09
0.67
9
4.09
0.52
113
Table 62
Results Of One-Way ANOVAS On CEQ Subscales For Graduates In The 7 Disability Categories
Subscale
df
F
Sig
6, 170
2.15
.050
6, 189
0.30
.934
Government & Community Supports & Services Subscale
6, 78
1.35
.245
Index of Difficulty (IDF)
6, 171
0.72
.635
Table 63
Results Of One-Way ANOVAS On CEQ Items For Graduates In The 7 Disability Categories
#
Item
df
F
Sig
1
2
3
4
Financial situation
Paid employment
Family situation
Friends
6, 154
6, 124
6, 155
6, 162
1.03
0.89
0.80
1.76
0.408
0.502
0.573
0.109
5
6
7
Study habits
6, 173
2.50
1.60
1.83
0.024
0.150
0.096
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Health
Course load
Course schedule
6, 153
5.52
0.84
0.83
1.25
1.26
0.47
1.20
0.67
0.54
0.48
0.66
0.70
0.49
1.78
0.86
0.47
0.74
0.58
1.64
1.01
0.000
0.540
0.550
0.281
0.280
0.828
0.311
0.675
0.778
0.820
0.681
0.649
0.812
0.107
0.523
0.829
0.617
0.745
0.141
0.423
6, 169
6, 160
6, 171
6, 167
6, 169
6, 169
6, 171
6, 140
6, 163
6, 157
6, 102
6, 155
6, 99
6, 153
6, 150
6, 129
6, 49
6, 66
6, 36
6, 146
6,105
Note. Items that are significant are boxed.
114
What Happens After Graduation?
Based on graduates' responses on the Post Cegep questionnaire we were able to compare employment rates and examine the
study and work status of the three groups of graduates 5 to 10 months after they received their diplomas.
The determination of activities following graduation (i.e., completion of a DEC) was based on the methodology used by the
Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport (MELS). It is outlined in their annual publication, "La Relance au collégial"
(Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport, 2004). Details of how this methodology was applied to the present data can be
found in the technical document, "Methodology for determining the employment and study status of Dawson graduates
following graduation" (Jorgensen, 2006).
The status of graduates following the completion of the DEC is shown in Table 64 for pre-university programs and Table 65
for career/technical programs. A chi-square test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference between
graduates with and without disabilities in the activities they were pursuing following graduation. This was done separately
for pre-university and career/technical programs. The two variables were Disability Group with two levels (With a
disability, No Disability) and Activity with 5 levels (Working Full Time, Working Part Time, Looking for Work, Studying
Unavailable for Work).
Table 64
Activities Of Graduates Following Completion Of A DEC - Pre-University Programs
N
Working
Full Time
Working
Part Time
Looking
for Work
Studying
Unavailable
For Work
Total
Registered
12
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
91.7%
8.3%
100%
Not registered
78
11.5%
5.1%
1.3%
82.1%
0.0%
100%
Total Disability
90
10.0%
4.4%
1.1%
83.3%
1.1%
100%
No Disability
752
7.6%
5.1%
1.7%
84.2%
1.5%
100%
Total
842
7.8%
5.0%
1.7%
84.1%
1.4%
100%
Status
With A Disability
Note. There were 844 pre-university program graduates. However, 2 did not reply to the work or study question.
Table 65
Activities Of Graduates Following Completion Of A DEC - Career/Technical Programs
N
Working
Full Time
Working
Part Time
Looking
for Work
Studying
Unavailable
For Work
Total
Registered
11
36.4%
9.1%
0.0%
54.5%
0.0%
100%
Not registered
75
53.3%
16.0%
1.3%
26.7%
2.7%
100%
Total Disability
86
51.2%
15.1%
1.2%
30.2%
2.3%
100%
No Disability
540
49.4%
13.7%
3.3%
30.9%
2.6%
100%
Total
626
49.7%
13.9%
3.0%
30.8%
2.6%
100%
Status
With A Disability
115
Note. There were 629 career/technical program graduates. However, 3 did not reply to the work or study question.
The profiles for graduates with and without disabilities were very similar and there was no statistically significant difference
for either pre-university, χ2 (4, N = 842) = 0.92, p = 0.921, or for career/technical programs, χ2 (4, N = 626) = 1.33, p =
0.856. It can be seen in Table 64 that of graduates with disabilities in pre-university programs, 83.3% were studying
compared to 84.2% of graduates without disabilities. These rates are consistent with the MELS Relance data reported for
pre-university programs (Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport, 2000). It can be seen in Table 65 that approximately
30% of career/technical program graduates were continuing their studies in both groups. These relationships can best be
seen in Figures 15 and 16.
Figure 15
Work Situation of Graduates From Career/Technical Programs
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
With a disability - registered
With a disability - not registered
Nondisabled
Part time
Full time
Seeking employ't
Inactive
116
Figure 16
Graduates Studying Full Time
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
With a disability - registered
With a disability - not registered
Nondisabled
Pre-Universiy
Career-Technical
Calculation of the employment rate includes only those graduates who are working or actively seeking work. Those who are
studying or claim they are unavailable for work are excluded. The percentage of the sample included in the employment rate
calculations is shown in Table 66 for pre-university programs and in Table 67 for career/technical programs. Since the
majority of pre-university graduates continue their studies, the number of these graduates actively involved in the labor
market is relatively small compared to the total number of pre-university graduates in the sample. The employment rates for
graduates of pre-university and career/technical programs are shown in Table 68 and Table 69, respectively.
Table 66
Proportion Of Sample Used In Calculating Employment Rates For Graduates Of Pre-University Programs.
Total Replies
To Work
Question
Total Included
In Employment
Rate Calculation
Total Who Were
Studying Or Not Looking
For Work
% Included
Registered
12
0
12
0%
Unregistered
78
14
64
17.9%
Total
90
14
76
15.6%
No Disability
752
108
644
14.4%
Total Pre-university
842
122
Status
With A Disability
720
14.5%
117
Note. There were 844 pre-university program graduates. However, 2 did not reply to the work or study question.
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in
employment rates between students with and without disabilities. The two variables were disability group with 2 levels
(With a Disability, No Disability) and employment category with two levels (Employed, Not Employed). The chi-square
test shows that there was no significant difference in the employment rates of pre-university graduates with disabilities
(92.9%) compared to those without disabilities (88.0%), χ2 (1, N = 122) = 0.29, p = .059. There was also no significant
difference in the employment rates of career/technical program graduates with disabilities (98.3%) compared to those
without disabilities (95.0%), χ2 (1, N = 417) = 1.24, p = 0.265.
Table 67
Proportion Of Sample Used In Calculating Employment Rates For Graduates Of Career/Technical Programs
Total Replies
To Work
Question
Total Included In
Employment Rate
Calculation
Total Who Were In
Study Or Not Looking
For Work
Total
Included
Registered
11
5
6
45.5%
Unregistered
75
53
22
70.7%
Total
86
58
28
67.4%
No Disability
540
359
181
66.5%
Total Career/Technical
626
417
209
66.6%
Status
With A Disability
Note. There were 629 career/technical program graduates; however 3 did not reply to the work question.
Table 68
Employment Rates in Pre-University Programs
Active
Working
Full Time
Working
Part Time
Looking
for Work
Working
Full Time
Working
Part Time
Registered
0
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
Unregistered
14
9
4
1
64.3%
28.6%
7.1%
92.9%
Total
14
9
4
1
64.3%
28.6%
7.1%
92.9%
No Disability
108
57
38
13
52.8%
35.2%
12.0%
88.0%
Total Pre-University
122
66
42
14
54.1%
34.4%
11.5%
88.5%
Status
Unemployment Employment
Rate
Rate
With A Disability
118
Table 69
Employment Rates In Career/Technical Programs
Active
Working
Full Time
Working
Part Time
Looking
for Work
Working
Full Time
Working
Part Time
Unemployment
Rate
Employment
Rate
Registered
5
4
1
0
80.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Unregistered
53
40
12
1
75.5%
22.6%
1.9%
98.1%
Total
58
44
13
1
75.9%
22.4%
1.7%
98.3%
No Disability
359
267
74
18
74.4%
20.6%
5.0%
95.0%
Grand Total
417
311
87
19
74.6%
20.9%
4.6%
95.4%
Disability Status
With A Disability
Note. There were only 5 registered graduates who were "active."
A chi-square test was carried out to determine whether there was a significant difference between graduates with and
without disabilities in the proportions working full time, part-time and seeking work. The two variables were Disability
Group with 2 levels (With a Disability, No Disability) and Employment Category with 3 levels (Employed Full Time,
Employed Part Time, Seeking Work). The test showed that there was no significant difference for either pre-university, χ2
(2, N = 122) = 0.72, p = .698, or career/technical program graduates, χ2 (2, N = 417) = 1.28, p = .528.
Are graduates working in the fields in which they studied? To calculate the percentage of graduates employed in the field of
study of the program from which they graduated only those who were in full time employment and who replied to the field
of study question were included. This is in accordance with the methodology use by the MELS in the Relance publications
(Ministère de l'Éducation, Loisir et Sport, 2004). This left a sample of 66 pre-university and 310 career/technical program
graduates. The percentages of graduates employed in the field of study of the program from which they graduated are
shown in Table 70 for pre-university programs and in Table 71 career/technical programs.
Table 70
Pre-University Programs – Employment in Field of Study
Fully
Related
Not
Related
Partially
Related
Grand
Total
% Closely
Related
% Partially
Related
Unregistered
1
6
2
9
11.1%
22.2%
66.7%
33.3%
Total
1
6
2
9
11.1%
22.2%
66.7%
33.3%
No Disability
4
40
13
57
7.0%
22.8%
70.2%
29.8%
Pre-University Total
5
46
15
66
7.6%
22.7%
69.7%
30.3%
Disability Status
%
% Related
Not Related (Fully+Partially)
With A Disability
*Registered
*There were no registered graduates who met the criteria for inclusion.
119
Table 71
Career/Technical Programs – Employment in Field of Study
Closely
Related
Not
Related
Partially
Related
Grand
Total
Registered
2
1
1
4
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
75.0%
Unregistered
24
7
8
39
61.5%
20.5%
17.9%
82.1%
Total
26
8
9
43
60.5%
20.9%
18.6%
81.4%
No Disability
204
25
38
267
76.4%
14.2%
9.4%
90.6%
Career/Technical Total
230
33
47
310
74.2%
15.2%
10.6%
89.4%
Disability Status
% Closely % Partially
Related
Related
% Not
% Related
Related (Fully+Partially)
With A Disability
The percentage of graduates employed in the field of study of their programs was lower for pre-university programs
(30.3%) than for career/technical programs (89.4%). This is not surprising given that pre-university programs are designed
to prepare graduates for university rather than for the workforce. There was, however, no significant difference between pre
university graduates with and without disabilities employed in a field of study that was related to their program (33.3% vs.
29.8%), χ2 (1, N = 66) = 0.05, p = 0.83. This was also true when the proportion of graduates in a field closely related to the
program was compared, χ2 (1, N = 66) = 0.19, p = 0.67.
There was, also no significant difference between graduates with (81.4%) and without disabilities (90.6%) in the proportion
of career/technical program graduates employed in a field of study that was related to their program, χ2 (1, N = 310) = 3.33,
p = 0.07. However, when the proportions of graduates in a field closely related to their programs were compared, for
graduates with (60.5%) and without disabilities (76.4%) the difference was significant, χ2 (1, N = 310) = 4.91, p < .05. This
suggests that although the employment rates for graduates with and without disabilities in career/technical programs are
similar, graduates with disabilities are less likely to be employed in a field of study closely linked to their program. It was
not possible to conduct a meaningful analysis of the registered graduates due to the small size of the sample. Similarly,
employment rates by disability type were not calculated due to the small numbers in each category.
120
Results In Brief
Sample characteristics. Before discussing the findings it is important to note that there were five distinct samples in this
investigation. The samples were
o
o
o
57 Cegep based disability service providers
300 current students with various disabilities who were enrolled at the time of testing at one of the public Cegeps
and who were registered to receive disability related services
1486 recent Cegep graduates from 2 large French Cegeps and 1 large English Cegep
1304 who were nondisabled
182 who had a disability
• 24 of whom were registered to receive disability related services from their college
• 158 of whom were not registered to receive disability related services.
Cegep based disability service providers. The 57 disability service provider participants represent a response rate of 83%.
They worked in 42 different Cegeps. Slightly over half were women. Although there was considerable variability, they had
been working an average of 7 years providing services to students with disabilities. On average, providing services to
students with disabilities constituted 20% of their workload, but again there was substantial variability. More than ¾ of the
disability service providers had provided services to students with learning disabilities/ADD, mobility and hearing
impairments. Less than half, however, had provided services to students with psychological/psychiatric disabilities,
medically related conditions, or speech/communication impairments.
Current students with disabilities who were registered to receive disability related services. The mean age of the 300
students, who were enrolled in 32 different Cegeps, was 21. Almost ⅔ were women. The return rate for current students was
32%. By far the largest number of students, over 90%, were enrolled in a diploma program with approximately ½ enrolled
in a pre-university program and ½ in a career/technical program. Less than 7% were enrolled in an attestation program or in
another course of studies. Students had various impairments. The most common impairment/disability was a learning
disability/attention deficit disorder, followed by mobility impairment, hearing impairment, medically related disability, and
psychological disability. It is noteworthy than approximately ⅓ of the students had more than one impairment, with
approximately 10% having 3 or more impairments.
Recent Cegep graduates. The 1486 graduates who responded to the survey represent a 28% return rate. The average age of
the graduates was 22.5 years and 182 of them (12%) indicated that they had a disability. This percentage was similar in the
three participating Cegeps. Of graduates with a disability, 24 (13%) were registered with their Cegep disability service
provider and 158 (87%) were not registered. Again, these percentages were similar in the three Cegeps. Slightly over ⅔ of
both graduates with and without disabilities were female. Graduates with disabilities were slightly (1/2 year) but
significantly older than graduates without disabilities. As was the case for current students with disabilities, approximately
half of the graduates with disabilities were enrolled in a pre-university program and half in a career/technical program This
was true both of graduates with and without disabilities. There were substantial and significant differences in the nature of
impairments of graduates with disabilities who had registered to receive disability related services compared to those who
did not register. Registered graduates were more likely to have a learning disability/ADD or a hearing impairment and to
have more than one disability. In addition, of the unregistered graduates, the largest percentage had a visual impairment,
while none of the registered graduates reported this. Unregistered graduates were also more likely to have a medical or
psychological impairment than registered graduates.
Implications of the demographic findings for the interpretation of the results. While the demographic section serves to
describe the samples, in the present context it also provides vital information needed when interpreting the results. First,
there are numerous implications of the very small sample of graduates with disabilities who were registered to receive
disability related services. Our findings (Jorgensen et al., 2005) show that Dawson students with disabilities and
nondisabled students graduate at the same rate given sufficient time. Nevertheless, our current findings show that the small
proportion of students with disabilities registered to receive services in the Cegep system in 1999 (Fichten et al., 2003,
2005) continues to the present day. Only a small numbers of graduates with disabilities had registered to receive disability
related services. Second, it is inappropriate to assume that the disability related obstacles and facilitators for students and
graduates with one type of impairment are similar to those of individuals with a different impairment. Learners with
121
different impairments may require either similar accommodations (e.g., extended time for exams) or disability specific
accommodations and services (e.g., a sign language interpreter). For example, while most students can benefit from lighter
course loads and extended time for exams, it is primarily students with visual impairments and with learning disabilities
who are likely to need materials in alternate formats. Students with psychiatric impairments and many medical conditions
generally do not need this type of accommodation. Similarly, it is primarily students and graduates with mobility and
neuromuscular impairments who are likely to need adapted transport, home care, and architectural modifications to their
home. Students with many other impairments do not require this.
To make the Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) comprehensive, we included items that are likely, in varying degrees,
to be important obstacles or facilitators to students with specific disabilities. This both increases certain types of validity
(e.g., ecological validity, face validity) and complicates the evaluation of the findings because in certain cases this has
meant very small numbers of participants answering certain questions.
Representation of students and graduates with disabilities in the cegeps.
Current students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services. We asked disability service providers how
many students with a disability were registered with them to receive disability related services. Disability service providers
from 44 of the 48 Cegeps provided data which ranged from 0 to 238 students with disabilities/Cegep, for a total of 1069
students. The average number of students with a disability per Cegep was 24, with a median of 12, which we believe better
represents the findings. These figures translate into .84% of the student body (i.e., less than one student per 100 full time
students).
We also obtained data from the 3 "centres d'accueil" about the total number of students with disabilities for whom the
MELS funds the Cegeps. The findings show that Cegeps received funding only for 391 of the 1069 students (i.e., 37%).
These figures translate into disability related funding for .31% of the student body (i.e., funding for approximately 1 in 300
full time students).
Changes from 1999 to 2004: Current students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services. One of our
goals was to examine what changes occurred during the past 5 years in the proportion of students who are registered to
receive disability related services at their Cegep. We did this because in a recent study of Canadian disability service
providers we found that Québec had a smaller proportion of both college (⅔% vs. 6%) and university (1/2% vs. 2½%)
students with disabilities than the rest of Canada (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Robillard, Fossey, & Lamb, 2003). Our data
show that the situation has improved, but not significantly.
Comparison of data from service providers concerning the number of students registered to receive disability related
services from the Cegep from the same 31 Cegeps in 1999 and 2004 show that in 1999, of a full time student body of
105,153 students 787 students were registered to receive services from their Cegep (i.e., .75%). In 2004, the corresponding
numbers are 940 students with disabilities among a full time student enrolment of 100,369 (i.e., .94%), with a trend toward a
larger proportion of students with disabilities. When we carried out a t-test to compare the mean percentages, we found that
the change was not significant.
We also compared data from 1999 and 2004 for the same 31 Cegeps. Variables included the number of students with
disabilities enrolled, the overall enrollment at the Cegep, and number of students for whom the Cegeps received funding
from the MELS. Here, the data show a similar change. In 1999, of a full time student body of 105,153 students the Cegeps
were funded to provide disability related services to 252 students (i.e., .24% of the full time student body and 32% of the
787 students with disabilities registered to receive services). In 2004, the corresponding numbers are funding for 343
students with disabilities among a full time student enrolment of 100,369 (i.e., .34% of the full time student body and 36%
of the 940 students with disabilities registered to receive services), with a trend toward a larger proportion of students with
disabilities. t-tests c the proportion of the student body for whom the MELS provides funding showed that the MELS
provides disability related funding for a significantly larger proportion of the full time student body in 2004 than in 1999.
However, the test comparing the proportion of registered students for whom the Cegeps receive funding was not significant.
Changes over time in the proportions of students with different impairments: Current students with disabilities registered to
receive disability related services. Our findings on current students with disabilities who are registered with their Cegep to
122
receive disability related services shows that the largest number had a learning disability with or without attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. This was the case for students from both French and English Cegeps. Statistics provided by
the managers in charge of services for students with disabilities at the 3 "centre d'accueil" Cegeps provided current and
historical data for students who are registered to receive disability related services from a Cegep and for whom funding is
provided by the MELS. These show important changes during the past decade in the proportion of students with different
impairments. For example, in 1992 67% of students for whom the eastern portion of Québec received funding consisted of
students with visual and hearing impairments. By 2004 that number had decreased to 37%, when students with learning
disabilities, for whom funding is currently based on a lump sum rather than on a per student formula, are excluded. The
number is 30% if students with learning disabilities are included in the calculations (Juhel, 2006). These figures show large
increases in the number of students with a learning disability and those who fall into the "other" disability category, such as
mobility and neuromuscular impairments, certain chronic medical and neurological conditions, and pervasive
developmental disorders. Similarly, at Dawson College in the fall of 2006 only 35% of funded students had a visual or
hearing impairment when students with learning disabilities are excluded from the computation (Havel, 2006). In the
western portion of Québec in 1996 the proportion of students with visual and hearing impairments was 61% (Fiset, 2004).
This percentage dropped to 57% in 2004 when students with learning disabilities are excluded from consideration and to
48% when these students are included (Fiset, 2006). As Daniel Fiset noted (Fiset, personal communication, 2004),
"Learning disability is an English disease. But the French are rapidly catching it."
Graduates. 182 of the 1486 graduates who responded to the survey (i.e., 12%) indicated that they had a disability. This
percentage was similar in the three participating Cegeps. Of graduates with a disability, 24 (13%) were registered with their
Cegep disability service provider and 158 (87%) were not registered. Again, these percentages were similar in the three
Cegeps. Many of the unregistered graduates have a medical or a psychological impairment.
Using the Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) to facilitate student success.
Refining the CEQ - Psychometric Analyses. The Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) measure we refined in this
investigation is based on a modified version of Fougeyrollas et al.'s (1999, 2001) PPH model. It evaluates obstacles and
facilitators from three vantagepoints: (1) the student's personal situation, (2) the Cegep environment, and (3) government
and community supports and services. Therefore, in a previous investigation we grouped the 32 items of the Cegep
Experience Questionnaire into three subscales and a total "Index of Difficulty."
Students make ratings on the 32 items of the Cegep Experience Questionnaire using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = much
harder, 6 = much easier, and "not applicable"). We grouped the 32 items based on face validity into the following three
subscales:
•
•
•
•
Students' Personal Situation (9 items including 1 that is only applicable to students/graduates with disabilities)
Cegep Environment (14 items including 1 that is only applicable to students/graduates with disabilities)
Government and Community Supports and Services (9 items including 4 that are only applicable to
students/graduates with disabilities)
Index of Difficulty (IDF) (25 items are common to students with and without disabilities, 6 are applicable only to
students/graduates with disabilities).
To be consistent with the goals of providing a scale that can be used on an item-by-item basis as well as having subscales,
we used single item, subscale, and Index of Difficulty (IDF) scores in the analyses. Two versions of the Index of Difficulty
(IDF) and of the subscale scores can be calculated: one set includes only those items which are applicable to both
students/graduates with and without disabilities. These are best when comparing scores of students/graduates with and
without disabilities. A second set was calculated that includes items that are disability specific. This set of scores is best
used in analyses dealing only with students/graduates with disabilities. The items included in each subscale can be seen in
Table 34. To compile subscale scores data only from participants who answered a minimum of 50% of items on the
subscale in question are summed. IDF scores are summed only for those participants who completed at least 50% of all
items.
In a previous investigation (Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, & Barile, 2005) we provided preliminary psychometric information
for the measure. In the present investigation we obtained additional indices of reliability and validity. This includes testretest data from 159 current students with disabilities. Results indicate that on the item-by-item, subscale, and index of
123
difficulty test-retest correlations all coefficients are of moderate to large size and highly significant. Moreover, the vast
majority of test and retest scores did not differ significantly. We also evaluated the internal consistency of subscales both for
current students with disabilities as well as for graduates with and without disabilities. Cronbach's alpha scores range from
.58 to .89, suggesting that the internal consistency of subscales is acceptable. In addition, the findings show modest
significant correlations among subscales and high and significant correlations between subscale and Index of Difficulty
scores.
What factors make cegep studies easier? Harder?
Analysis of open-ended obstacle/facilitator responses. Part of the process of determining the facilitators and obstacles that
students with disabilities face in the Cegeps involved analysis of the responses of all participants to a series of two openended questions that dealt with factors that have made Cegep studies easier and harder for students. Campus based disability
service providers responded based on their perception of the circumstances of students with disabilities. Current students
with disabilities, graduates with disabilities, and nondisabled graduates responded based on their own experiences and
circumstances. It should be noted that depending on the specific student's situation and on the specifics of the environmental
conditions, the same topic could be either an obstacle or a facilitator. It should also be noted that all learners, whether they
have a disability or not, are influenced by factors common to all students such as good and poor teachers.
Current students with disabilities and disability service providers. To provide a picture of similarities and differences
between these two groups, obstacles and facilitators identified by current students with disabilities and campus based
disability service providers were compared. In general, both students and campus based disability service providers
indicated more Cegep based facilitators than obstacles and more student's personal situation and community and
government supports and services obstacles than facilitators.
Facilitators: Current students with disabilities and disability service providers. Current students with disabilities, all of
whom were registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep, were most likely to indicate that disability
related accommodations were the most important facilitators. These include: services for students with disabilities in general
and specific disability related accommodations such as having a note taker or interpreter in class, extended time for exams
and assignments, and an accessible building, as well sensitization and information dissemination about disabilities.
Approximately half of the facilitators cited most frequently by students with disabilities were not specifically disability
related but issues of concern to all students. These include: good teachers, the Cegep environment, tutors and learning
centers (which assist with studying, writing, and exam taking skills and provide tutoring), the availability of computers and
of support and help. Other factors that students indicated made their studies easier are the facilitating role of: friends and
family, having a good schedule, and their financial situation, motivation, and study skills.
Although many of the important facilitators noted by current students with disabilities were also noted by campus based
disability service providers, there were exceptions. For example, although students identified friends, their schedule, their
family, finances, and the possibility to take a reduced number of courses and still be considered "full time students,"
disability service providers did not do so. Campus based disability service providers, on the other hand, indicated that a
small college, the service provider being knowledgeable about disabilities, pre-registration for courses before other students
register, helpful staff, and the availability of good counselling and academic advising were important facilitators, as well as
the student's personal situation - factors not noted by students with disabilities.
Obstacles: Current students with disabilities and disability service providers. In general, obstacles noted by most students
with disabilities were not specific to students with disabilities. Important obstacles included: poor teachers, difficult courses,
poor schedules, having to hold a job, students' personal situations in general, the Cegep environment, transportation issues,
students' finances, lack of availability of computers, too many courses, poor study skills, bad schedules, transition related
issues, demanding and boring programs, poor motivation, and insufficient time.
Most obstacles noted by campus based disability service providers were also noted by students with disabilities. A notable
exception relates to disability related accommodations, aspects of which close to ½ of disability service providers saw as an
obstacle, while only 2% of students with disabilities did so. Other exceptions are as follows. Service providers noted that
important obstacles included poor or few accommodations and services for students with disabilities, lack of information
and sensitization about disabilities, disability service providers not having adequate knowledge about disabilities and
accommodations, and students' poor self-advocacy skills. Students, on the other hand, noted the following important
124
obstacles that were not mentioned by service providers: too many courses, problems with their courses and programs of
study in general, insufficient time, bad schedules, transition issues, having to hold a job, and poor motivation, study skills,
and health.
Commonalities between obstacles and facilitators: Current students with disabilities and disability service providers.
Depending on the student's situation and on the specifics of the environmental conditions, the same factor was seen as either
an obstacle or a facilitator. For example, for current students with disabilities teachers, the availability of computers, the
Cegep environment, their schedules, and course load were seen either as facilitators or obstacles. The same was true of
students' motivation, study skills, and finances.
Cegep based disability service providers also identified several factors as both obstacles and facilitators, depending on the
circumstances: the accessibility of Cegep buildings, the overall Cegep environment, how knowledgeable the campus based
disability service provider is about disability and accommodations, and sensitization and information about disabilities.
Teachers, the availability of computers, and students' personal situations were also seen as both facilitators and as obstacles,
depending on the circumstances.
Graduates. Facilitators and obstacles identified by nondisabled graduates and those with disabilities were compared as were
the responses of graduates with disabilities who were, and those who were not registered to receive disability related
services from their Cegep.
Facilitators: Graduates. Graduates with and without disabilities noted virtually all of the same important facilitators: good
teachers, the Cegep environment, their motivation, program, friends, and finances, as well as good transportation, interesting
courses, a favorable personal situation, good schedules, easy courses, good support and help, a helpful family, available
computers, the library, and good study skills. There were only three exceptions: graduates with disabilities indicated that
their classmates and the services for students with disabilities were important facilitators while nondisabled graduates noted
that their academic preparation was important.
Obstacles: Graduates. Similarly, most important obstacles were also shared by graduates with and without disabilities.
These include: difficult courses, poor teachers, the Cegep environment, poor schedules, a poor personal situation, having to
work at a job, poor finances, too many courses, difficulties with one's program of study, transportation issues, poor study
skills, and transition concerns. Exceptions are that graduates with disabilities also noted that their study skills, motivation,
and family situations posed important obstacles along with the impact of their disability/impairment. Nondisabled graduates,
on the other hand, noted that inadequate availability of computers and their academic schedules posed problems.
Graduates with disabilities who were, and who were not registered to receive disability related services. There were many
dissimilarities between these two groups. For example, almost half of the graduates registered to receive disability related
services noted that this was a facilitator, making this the second most popular option of this group. It is not surprising that
students not registered for disability related services did not mention this. In addition, registered graduates noted that a
learning center (which provides tutoring and assists with studying, writing, and exam taking skills) was important for them
while graduates not registered noted other types of facilitators, such as the Cegep environment, their friends, family,
finances, study skills, and personal situation in general as well as good transportation and library facilities.
Similarly, registered graduates were much more likely to indicate that their disability and health were obstacles along with
poor access to computers. Graduates with disabilities who did not register, on the other hand, noted that their course load
and program of studies posed obstacles along with transition issues, transportation problems their family situations and poor
motivation. It is noteworthy that none of the registered graduates indicated that disability related accommodations posed an
obstacle.
Analysis of Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) responses.
Current students with disabilities who are registered to receive disability related services and campus based disability
service providers. Although it may seem obvious, it nevertheless needs to be underscored that students with disabilities are,
first and foremost, students. To the extent that they attend college they are subject to many of the same obstacles and
facilitators as nondisabled students.
125
Students with disabilities. That having been said, the results indicate that the availability of disability related services and
accommodations was seen as the most important facilitator by students with disabilities and the impact of their disability
was seen as the most important obstacle. In general, aspects of the Cegep environment were the most facilitating, students'
personal situations posed the most difficulty, with government and community supports and services being in between. In
particular, the following items were seen as the 10 most important factors that made students' college studies easier.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Friends
The following were seen as obstacles by students:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Course load
Paid employment
Financial situation
We expected that the more impairments students had, the more obstacles they would encounter. The results show that for 9
of the 10 instances where there was a significant correlation, the more disabilities students had, the more likely they were to
experience obstacles.
Nature of students' impairments and Cegep Experience Questionnaire results. Students with different impairments were
expected to have different responses on disability specific items of the scale. For example, while factors such as
accessibility of the class and coordination between needed external support services were expected to elicit ratings by
students who use a wheelchair, these were expected to be answered "not applicable" by students with visual impairments.
Too numerous to detail, these results can best be seen in Tables 43 and 46.
Campus based disability service providers. Disability service providers made importance rather than easy-difficult ratings,
so their scores cannot be compared directly to easy-difficult ratings made by students. The results indicate that, in general,
service provision items were seen as most important, followed by items dealing with students' personal situations, the Cegep
environment, and government and community supports and services. In particular, the 10 most important service provision
related items were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Availability of affordable diagnostic services (e.g., LD assessment) external to the Cegep
Identification of students' individual needs by the disability service provider
126
Of the aspects which students also rated, the 10 most important factors seen as being implicated in the academic
performance of Cegep students with disabilities were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students' level of personal motivation
Students' study habits
Willingness of professors to adapt courses to the student's needs
Students' health
Students' course load
Comparison of disability service providers' importance ratings and current students' facilitators and obstacles ratings.
When we correlated campus based disability service providers' importance ratings with students' easy-difficult ratings we
found that these were not significantly related. Similarly, we also carried out a direct comparison of service providers' and
current students' importance ratings by collapsing the easier-harder scores of students (i.e., If an item was a major facilitator
or a major obstacle we rated this as very important. Items with slightly easy-difficult scores were scored as unimportant.
Items rated by the students as making their studies moderately easier or more difficult were scored as medium in
importance. When we correlated these "importance" scores of students with the importance ratings by campus based
disability service providers we found that the correlation was low and nonsignificant.
Nevertheless, on the top 11 items of importance students and service providers agreed upon most. Differences show that
campus based disability service providers felt that the attitudes and willingness of professors to adjust their courses to
students' needs were important as well as students' study habits, health, and course loads, and the attitudes of other students.
Students felt that the availability of computers off-campus and of physical adaptations at home were important along with
public transportation, the accessibility of Cegep physical education courses, and their friends and family situation.
We also examined items seen by disability service providers as most important, mid-range in importance, and least
important and examined students' facilitator and obstacle scores in relation to these. The results show that the number 1
ranked facilitator, considered a facilitator by 70% of students, was the availability of disability related services at the Cegep,
an item among those seen as the most important by service providers. The corresponding greatest obstacle, endorsed by
53% of students, was the impact of their disability; this item, however, was only seen as being of intermediate importance
by service providers. In addition, among items rated in the most important range by disability service providers, two items
had student scores in the obstacle range: availability of adapted transportation for people with disabilities and course load.
In addition, three items that were seen as among the least important by disability service providers were seen as major
obstacles by students with disabilities: financial situation, paid employment, and level of difficulty of courses.
Graduates. Three groups of recent graduates completed the CEQ: graduates who were nondisabled, graduates with a
disability who were registered to receive disability related services from their college, and graduates with disabilities who
were not registered to receive disability related services. While we did expect to find differences between graduates with
and without disabilities on certain items as well as between graduates who had registered to receive disability related
services and those who did not, (e.g., health), in most cases we expected more similarities than differences.
Graduates with vs. without disabilities. There was considerable overlap between the items that were perceived as the
greatest obstacles and facilitators by graduates with and without disabilities. Three of the four items with the highest mean
scores were common to both groups. The seven items with the lowest mean scores were also common to both groups.
However, results on the 26 items which were applicable to graduates with and without disabilities (of the total of 32 items
six are applicable only to graduates with disabilities) show that, overall, graduates with disabilities had significantly lower
scores on the overall Index of Difficulty than nondisabled graduates. Examination of the items showed that graduates with
disabilities had less facilitating scores mainly on items dealing with their personal situation. For example, graduates with
disabilities rated their families as less supportive than did nondisabled graduates. As expected, graduates with disabilities, as
a group, had significantly less facilitating scores on the health item as well. Comparison of scores of graduates with
different disabilities shows that this is largely due to the nature of graduates' impairments, as health was more of an obstacle
127
for graduates with medical and psychological impairments while it was more of a facilitator for graduates with learning
disabilities and visual impairments. It should be noted that although level of personal motivation was rated as a very
important facilitator by most students, it was especially facilitating for students with learning disabilities and/or attention
deficit disorder. Overall, there were no significant difference between graduates with and without disabilities on the Cegep
Environment subscale. There was one notable exception however: graduates with disabilities in career/technical programs
(but not pre-university programs) found professors less accommodating of their needs than graduates without disabilities.
It should be noted, however, that differences may often have been obscured by very small sample sizes. Therefore, we also
examined similarities and differences in the relative rankings of scores by graduates with and without disabilities. The
results show that rankings by graduates with and without a disability were closely related. Nevertheless, there were some
important discrepancies. The health of nondisabled graduates was ranked first (i.e., most facilitating) while this item was
ranked 19th out of 26 by graduates with disabilities. Similarly, while their families were ranked number 6 by nondisabled
graduates, this item was ranked 15th by graduates with disabilities.
It is noteworthy that for both graduates with and without disabilities the following items were among the highest in the
rankings (i.e., most facilitating).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Friends
Accessibility of classrooms/labs etc.
Public transport
Availability of disability related services (graduates with disabilities only)
Similarly, for both graduates with and without disabilities the following items were among the lowest in the rankings (i.e.,
least facilitating).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Course schedule
Financial situation
Disability related support services off-campus (graduates with disabilities only)
Scheduling conflicts between disability related services (graduates with disabilities only)
Paid employment
Course load
Impact of disability (graduates with disabilities only)
Graduates with disabilities who were vs. were not registered for disability related services from their Cegep. We also
compared the scores of graduates with disabilities who registered and those who did not register for disability related
services. Here, the results are conclusive: graduates with disabilities who had registered to receive disability related services
had scores that were more facilitating than graduates who did not register. This was true on the overall index of difficulty as
well as on the Cegep environment subscale. Differences in favor of registered graduates were also found on specific items.
These are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Course schedule
128
Nondisabled graduates vs. registered graduates with disabilities vs. non-registered graduates with disabilities. When we
compared the scores of the three groups of graduates directly, the results show that the registered group of graduates with
disabilities had higher (i.e., more facilitative) overall index of difficulty scores than did nondisabled graduates, who, in turn
had higher scores than graduates with disabilities who had not registered.
We also compared the rankings of the two groups of graduates. The results show that rankings of graduates with and
without a disability were closely related. For example, the following items had the highest ranks (i.e., most facilitating) in
both samples of graduates.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Friends
Similarly, there were many commonalities among items with the lowest ranks (i.e., least facilitating). Not surprisingly, the
item dealing with the impact of their disability ranked lowest for both groups.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Course schedule
Health
Financial situation
Course load
Paid employment
Nevertheless, there were some important discrepancies. For example the availability of disability related services at the
Cegep ranked near the top of the list for registered graduates but was in the lower half of the ranking of unregistered
graduates, suggesting that those graduates who registered for services found that disability related services was one of the
main factors that made their Cegep experience easier. The items dealing with the availability of computers on campus as
well as with the accessibility of Cegep physical education courses also showed large differences in rankings, with
considerably higher rankings by registered graduates than by unregistered graduates.
What should be changed? Analysis of open-ended recommendations for changes.
Current students with disabilities and campus based disability service providers. Approximately 10% of students with
disabilities felt that things were reasonably good and that no changes were needed, whereas this response was not given by
any of the service providers. Of high priority to both students with disabilities and disability service providers was the need
for sensitizing and informing others about disabilities. Other changes frequently suggested by both groups were improving
general support and help in the Cegep, improving services for students with disabilities, including providing better access to
computer technologies and better accessibility of building and facilities. Promoting collaboration and communication
between staff, teachers and students, increased funding for their services, and better availability of tutoring were frequent
suggestions made by disability service providers. Students, but not campus based disability service providers, also wanted
easier courses, better teachers, and more human assistance.
Graduates. Changes suggested by graduates with and without disabilities were very similar and were generally aimed at the
Cegep in general. Of greatest importance to both groups were better schedules and teachers, improving programs and
courses in general, more available computer technologies and support and help from Cegep staff as well as improvements to
the physical environment of the college. A slightly larger proportion of graduates with disabilities suggested the need for
easier courses, better building accessibility and more government support.
129
What happens after graduation?
Studying. The activity profiles for graduates with and without disabilities were very similar; this was true for both preuniversity and career/technical program graduates. For example, 83% of graduates with disabilities in pre-university
programs were studying after graduation compared to 84% of graduates without disabilities, rates that are consistent with
the MELS Relance data reported for pre-university programs (Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport, 2000). In both
groups approximately 31% of career/technical program graduates were continuing their studies.
Employment rates. Calculation of employment rate includes only those graduates who were working or actively seeking
work. Those who were studying or indicated they were unavailable for work are excluded. The results here, too, show that
employment rates of pre-university graduates with disabilities (93%) and without disabilities (89%) were very similar. Nor
was there a significant difference in the employment rates of career/technical program graduates with (98%) and without
disabilities (95%); this was true whether they were or were not registered to receive disability related services from their
Cegep. Employment rates by disability type were not calculated due to the small numbers in each category.
What about full time and part-time status? The results again show no significant differences between graduates with and
without disabilities, whether they had registered to receive disability related services from their Cegeps or not, in the
proportions working full time, part-time and seeking work for either pre-university or career/technical program graduates.
Are graduates working in the fields in which they studied? It was not surprising that the percentage of graduates employed
in the field of study of their programs was considerably lower for pre-university programs than for career/technical
programs. There was, however, no significant difference between graduates with and without disabilities in the proportion
of pre-university graduates employed in a field of study that was related to their program. This was also true of the
proportion of career/technical program graduates employed in a field of study that was related to their program: the rates
were 81% and 91% for graduates with and without disabilities, respectively. However, when the proportions of
career/technical program graduates in a field closely related to their programs were compared, for graduates with (61%) and
without disabilities (76%) the difference was significant. This suggests that although the employment rates for graduates
with and without disabilities in career/technical programs are similar, graduates with disabilities are less likely to be
employed in a field of study closely linked to their program. It was not possible to conduct a meaningful comparison of
registered and unregistered graduates or of graduates with different impairments due to small sample sizes.
130
Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Sample Characteristics And Representation Of Students And Graduates With Disabilities In The
Cegeps
Summary: Campus based disability service providers and learners with disabilities in the Cegeps. Although this
varied greatly, campus based disability service providers typically had seven years experience in the job and devoted an
average of one day per week to providing services to students with disabilities. Over half of the campus based disability
service providers reported that they had experience providing services to students with learning disabilities, and mobility
and hearing impairments. However, less than half of them had experience providing services to students with medical and
psychological disabilities.
As is the trend in all postsecondary education, Cegep students with disabilities and all three groups of graduates were more
likely to be female than male. This is similar to results for Dawson College graduates from a previous investigation
(Fichten, Jorgensen, et al., 2005). Consistent with the results of an earlier study (Jorgensen et al., 2005), where we found
that Cegep students with disabilities take one semester longer to graduate, in the present investigation we found that Cegep
graduates with disabilities are, on average, ½ year older than their nondisabled counterparts. The vast majority (over 90%)
of both current students with disabilities and all three groups of graduates were enrolled in a regular diploma program:
approximately ½ in a pre-university program and ½ in a career/technical program.
The nature of the impairments of those who register to receive disability related services from their Cegep has changed over
the years. Among the most common impairments of current students and graduates alike are: a learning disability/attention
deficit disorder, mobility impairment, hearing impairment, medically related disability, and psychological disability. Also,
approximately 25% of those who register for disability related services have 2 or more impairments.
The impairments of many students with disabilities no longer fit the original tripartite Québec Ministère de l’Éducation,
Loisir et Sport (MELS) division of visual impairment, hearing impairment, and "other." In fact, a learning disability, the
most common impairment reported by current students registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep, is
not funded according to the MELS’s traditional funding formula. Other common impairments of students include certain
health and psychiatric and psychological disabilities, impairments which are not recognized or funded by the MELS, and
about which disability service providers know relatively little. This trend is similar to that reported for a large sample of
American 2 year colleges (D'Amico, 2006).
The proportion of Cegep students who are registered to receive disability related services has risen slightly over 1999 levels.
This change, however, is not dramatic and it may not be keeping up with corresponding increases in other provinces. Most
troubling is that the percentage of students receiving disability related services continues to be under 1% of the student
body. Similarly, the percentage of students registered to receive disability related services for whom the Cegeps receive
funding from the Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport has improved over the 1999 level, but only slightly: currently, the
Cegeps receive funding only for approximately ⅓ of the students who are actually registered to receive services. This has
resulted in serious service provision and funding issues. Cegeps handle this problem in various ways. For example, some
Cegeps have "waiting lists" for service (Juhel, 2006, personal communication).
Our study of graduates suggests that the actual proportion of Cegep students who self-identify as having a disability hovers
around 10%, but that most students with disabilities do not register to receive disability related services. The majority of
unregistered graduates with disabilities had medical, psychological, visual or learning disabilities.
Conceptual issues. These include registered vs. unregistered students, funding issues, and the "emerging clientele" of
students with disabilities in the Cegeps.
Registered vs. unregistered students. As is the case in the rest of North American colleges and universites, our results
suggest that the majority (approximately 90% in our sample) of students with self-reported disabilities in the Cegeps do not
register to receive disability related services or accommodations. Therefore, estimating the rate of disability in the Cegeps
using only those students who register significantly under-reports the actual rate. This also raises the question of whether
there really are, proportionally, very few students with disabilities with disabilities who require disability related services in
131
the Cegep system or whether the students are enrolled, but, for a variety of reasons, do not register to receive disability
related services.
Nevertheless, because most students with disabilities are not registered to receive disability related services,
accommodations are often not made for them by faculty or staff. Therefore, there is increased need for universal
instructional design, which involves educational strategies that are accessible to all students, including those with
disabilities (cf. Loewen, 2006; McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2003; Nguyen et al., in press; Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroeger,
2003).
Universal instructional design is an outgrowth of the universal design movement in architecture (cf. Connell, et al. 1995).
“Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible,
without the need for adaptation or specialized design The intent of universal design is to simplify life for everyone by
making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra
cost. Universal design benefits people of all ages and abilities (Center for Universal Design, 2006).
The principles of universal instructional design, adapted from McGuire, Scott, and Shaw (2003), Nguyen et al. (in press),
and Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroeger (2003) are presented in Table 72.
Table 72
The 9 Principles Of Universal Design For Instruction
Principle
Definition
Examples of recommendations
Equitable use
The design does not disadvantage or stigmatize
any group of users
An access ramp is available in the
establishment; multiple modes of presentation of
class material (can help diminish language
related obstacles)
Flexibility in use
The design accommodates a wide range of
individual preferences and abilities
Offer choices or alternative ways of completing
the course workload (can help decrease course
difficulty)
Simple, intuitive use
Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless
of the user’s experience, knowledge, language
skills, or current concentration level
Eliminate all material that is unnecessarily
complex, use concise vocabulary and speak
clearly
Perceptible information
The design communicates necessary information
effectively to the user, regardless of ambient
conditions or the user’s sensory abilities
Use PowerPoint presentations and/or a projector
to communicate class material (using a large
font and a good contrast); make the content
available online prior to each class
Tolerance for error
The design minimizes hazards and the adverse
consequences of accidental or unintended actions
When providing computer based or online
exams ensure that it will not be made invalid by
an accidental keystroke
Low physical effort
The design can be used efficiently and
comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue
Avoid unduly long exams
Size and space for approach
and use
Appropriate size and space is provided for
Classrooms used for exams should take into
approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless consideration the number of students and ensure
of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility
their comfort
A community of learners
The instructional environment promotes
interaction and communication among students
and between students and faculty
Assign students to groups or give them group
projects - this will promote greater
communication and inclusion among students
Instructional climate
Instruction is designed to be welcoming and
inclusive. High expectations are espoused for all.
Assert you availability to all students; underline
your openness to discuss individual needs
132
Funding issues. Extrapolation suggests that there are approximately 15,000 students with disabilities currently enrolled in
the Cegeps (i.e., approximately 10%), although only approximately 10% of them register to receive disability related
services from their Cegep. In turn, Cegeps receive funding for only about ⅓ of students who are registered, suggesting that
there are serious financial concerns around providing services for students with disabilities.
The "emerging clientele." Reports from the disability service providers and from the managers in charge of services for
students with disabilities at the three “centre d’accueil” Cegeps show important trends in the types of impairments presented
by students to whom they provide services. Many of these are impairments for which Cegeps receive little or no funding
from the MELS. The trend over time shows that the "emerging clientele" of students with learning disabilities, psychiatric
and medical conditions has been increasing dramatically, resulting in even more important funding concerns. The "emerging
clientele" has also posed difficulties for disability service providers who feel inexperienced and inadequate in providing
services to students with some of these impairments (e.g., psychiatric disabilities, Asperger's). This situation has resulted in
additional important funding concerns.
The "emerging clientele" has translated into only very modest funding increases to the Cegeps (e.g., a total of $30,000 for
all students with learning disabilities in the entire eastern portion of the province (Juhel, 2006, personal communication).
Nevertheless, there are some positive developments concerning the "emerging clientele" of students. For example, the
MELS has already instituted changes in the Cegeps to ensure that students with learning disabilities receive increased
attention from faculty and administration. For example, the entire February 2006 issue of Correspondance (2006), a MELS
funded magazine distributed to all professors of French at the French Cegeps, was devoted entirely to students with learning
disabilities. In this issue helpful guidelines for accommodating students with learning disabilities in general are provided
and there are specific recommendations about accommodations to help these students succeed on the "épreuve uniforme"
(i.e., Ministerial Examination of College French (or English) also known as the Exit Exam), a four-hour examination that all
Cegep students must pass to obtain their college diploma (DEC) (Fortier, 2006).
Using The Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) To Facilitate Student Success
We have developed the content of the 32 item closed-ended Cegep Experience Questionnaire and established that it has
acceptable reliability and validity. Regular print, large print and digital (Word) versions are provided in the Appendix in
French and English. Disability specific items are designated in Table 34. There are no "norms" per se. However, average
scores for students with disabilities in general are provided in Table 38. Mean scores for a smaller number of students with
specific impairments are provided in Table 45.
What Factors Make Cegep Studies Easier? Harder? What Should Be Changed?
Conceptual issues. These concern the comparison of open-ended listings with Cegep Experience Questionnaire results, the
PPH model, and the commonalities and differences between individuals with disabilities who do vs. those who do not
register for disability related services.
Comparison of open-ended listings with Cegep Experience Questionnaire results. A one-to-one comparison of open-ended
listings and Cegep Experience Questionnaire scores is not possible. The open-ended listing looks at the frequency of how
many students spontaneously indicated a topic as a facilitator or an obstacle. The CEQ, on the other hand, provides a mean
score for students on the item. Nevertheless, examination of items with "facilitating" mean scores suggests that many of
these items also appear on the open-ended listings. This is also true of obstacles, providing additional evidence for the
validity of the CEQ measure. For example, for students with disabilities, disability related accommodations were the most
frequently mentioned facilitators on the open-ended measure; this is also one of the top ranked item on the CEQ. Health and
the impact of one’s impairment were the most frequently mentioned obstacles on the open ended listings by students and
graduates with disabilities: these are also common obstacles noted on the CEQ.
Data from the findings of others also provide confidence that the CEQ measure is measuring what it is supposed to measure.
For example, several of the facilitator concepts were also reported by the sample of 71 individuals interviewed at Baylor
University (Graham-Smith & Lafayette, 2004). Here, researchers found that of accommodations offered at the university,
133
the largest percentage of responses dealt with the attitudes of the staff, a quiet place for exams, extended time for exams,
and study skills training and tutoring. Similarly, in a study by Smith and Nelson (1993) the results show that the following
were deemed important in influencing college studies: level of personal motivation, study habits, previous education
experiences, attitudes of students, attitudes of professors, and disability related services at the college.
PPH model. We examined the obstacles and facilitators to student success at Cegep that students with disabilities, campus
based disability service providers and graduates with and without disabilities reported from the vantagepoint of
Fougeyrollas' PPH model (Processus de production du handicap: Fougeyrollas, Lippel, St-Onge, Gervais, Boucher, Bernard,
& Lavoie, 1999). The PPH model was developed in Québec (Fougeyrollas, Cloutier, Bergeron, Cote, & St Michel, 1998)
and is widely used in the rehabilitation community. According to this model the presence of a handicap reduces the ability
to perform daily activities; this results from the interaction of personal and environmental factors (Fougeyrollas et al., 1999).
In the case of education, daily activities ("habitude de vie") involve attending college, studying, writing, reading and
participating in the extracurricular and social activities offered at the college (cf. Lemieux-Brassard, 1996). This approach
recognizes that through the individuals’ abilities, and with appropriate interventions, the obstacles that the individual who
has an impairment encounters in the educational setting can be overcome. These interventions in Cegeps are often mediated
though the campus based disability service providers who provide various accommodations to students with disabilities who
register for disability related services.
Our findings show that a very large percentage of students with disabilities may not receive such support to help them
overcome obstacles they may encounter as a result of their disability because they do not register for disability related
services. The findings show that these unregistered individuals with disabilities report experiencing more difficulties,
especially obstacles related to the Cegep environment, than do individuals who either have no disabilities or who do have a
disability and have registered to receive disability related services from their college.
Certain factors can serve as both a facilitator as well as an obstacle, depending on the circumstances, and it is the interaction
between personal and environmental factors that create either obstacles or facilitators. It is these "common" frequently
endorsed items (i.e., those that can be obstacles as well as facilitators) that need to be paid special attention when trying to
ensure that Cegeps provide a supportive environment to students. For example, the availability of computers on campus was
a popular facilitator - and a popular obstacle - to students. Clearly, if computers with needed adaptations are available in
settings where the student needs to work on these, then it is a facilitator. When it is not available or when the available
computer does not have needed accessibility features, then it can pose an obstacle.
Future research needs to examine whether it is the same individual who has identified a particular item as both an obstacle
and facilitator or whether it is different students who did this (e.g., designate the Cegep environment as a facilitator or an
obstacle). Exploring this issue can help determine good student-Cegep environment fit, which may be especially important
for students with disabilities. For example, if students who are blind typically indicate that the Cegep environment is an
obstacle, while students with mobility impairments indicate that this is a facilitator, then the nature of environmental
solutions to best solve problems are likely to differ. In this instance the environment of the Cegep is a constant, so its
evaluation as either an obstacle or a facilitator is the result of an interaction between personal aspects and the Cegep
environment.
On the other hand, some obstacles and facilitators may not reflect a person-environment interaction, but, rather be
exclusively based on the individual or on the environment. An example of an exclusively environmentally based evaluation
would occur if virtually all students were to, for example, rate specific teachers as good and other teachers as poor. An
exclusively personal evaluation would mean that a single student evaluates specific teachers as good when most others
evaluate the teacher as poor or the converse. That each of these situations can occur is evident from an examination of
teacher ratings at RateMyTeachers.Ca (2006) and at RateMyProfessors.Com (2006).
Registered vs. unregistered individuals with disabilities. The findings also show that those individuals with disabilities who
did not register with their Cegep based disability service provider perceived the factors that influence success at college as
less facilitating than either individuals with disabilities who did register or individuals without disabilities. This was true on
the overall Index of Difficulty, on the Cegep environment subscale, and on specific Cegep environment items, including
course schedules, the attitudes of non-teaching staff, and the availability of course materials and computers on campus.
Our recent research at Dawson College showed that students with disabilities who registered to receive disability related
services from their college can and do achieve good academic results and that they are just as likely to graduate as
134
nondisabled students given sufficient time (Jorgensen, Fichten, Havel et al., 2003; Jorgensen, Fichten, Havel, et al., 2003;
Jorgensen, Fichten, Havel, 2005). But what about the very large number of students with disabilities who do not register to
receive disability related services? Does a decision not to register and, therefore, to receive no disability related services
result in a less facilitating environment that impacts on the academic success of the unregistered students? Does not
registering compromise their ability to graduate and to successfully compete for admission to university? Future research
needs to investigate this issue by examining the academic outcomes of students with the same types of impairments who do
and those who do not register to receive disability related services.
It is important to know whether graduates who chose not to register for disability related services might have fared better if
they had registered. If so, students should be encouraged to use available services in their Cegeps. Comparing academic
outcomes of the three groups will provide insight into whether disability related services not only help eliminate perceived
educational obstacles faced by learners because of their disability but also helps students succeed in their studies. Making
the findings available to those involved in planning pedagogical changes, advising students, and providing disability related
services will help assure quality education and post-graduation opportunities for all Cegep students and graduates, including
those with disabilities. How does this group compare academically to students with disabilities who are registered to receive
disability related services? Are their impairments similar or different? What could - or should - be done to assist these
students?
Summary. In general, all participants (i.e., students with disabilities, campus based disability service providers, and
graduates with and without disabilities) indicated more conditions that made Cegep studies easier than harder. This was
especially notable in the case of Cegep based factors, which were generally seen as both important and quite facilitating.
Students' personal situations and community and government based services were less so. Consistent with the findings of
our previous investigation (Fichten, Jorgensen, et al., 2005), in general, the more impairments a student reported having, the
more obstacles he or she encountered.
Disability service providers identified numerous issues related to their function as service providers that they considered
important to student success. These include: good collaboration between professors and disability service providers;
affordable diagnostic services external to the Cegep, such as evaluations of learning disabilities; students’ ability to express
their needs; the attitudes of the administration toward services provided to students with disabilities; identification of
students' individual needs by the disability service provider; students’ awareness of the impact of their disability; the budget
allocated for disability services at the Cegep; willingness of students to use suitable accommodations; students' choice of
career; and professors’ level of knowledge about disability services and accommodations.
Most facilitators and obstacles reported by individuals with and without disabilities were common to both groups.
Individuals with disabilities who did not register for disability related services, however, had significantly and substantially
less facilitating scores overall as well as on several Cegep environment related items than nondisabled individuals or
individuals with disabilities who did register. These results, which are based on data from Cegep graduates, are very similar
to our findings on current students with and without disabilities (Fichten, Jorgensen, et al., 2005).
Good teachers, tutors and learning centers (which assist with studying, writing, and exam taking skills and provide tutoring),
and the availability of computers both on and off-campus were generally seen as important facilitators by current students
and by all three groups of graduates. Friends, good schedules, easy and interesting courses and programs, a good financial
situation, good motivation and good study skills were also identified as facilitators by all groups. On the other hand, poor
teachers, difficult courses, poor schedules, having to hold a job during the academic term, transportation problems, a poor
financial situation, lack of access to computers, having to take too many courses, poor study skills, demanding and boring
programs, poor motivation, and insufficient time were generally seen as obstacles.
Consistent with the finding that the availability and accessibility of computers, both at the Cegep and off-campus, were seen
as important facilitators, other investigations have also found that computers were rated as important facilitators by students
with disabilities (e.g., Burgstahler & Doe, 2006). In addition, a recent investigation shows that computer use on the job is
associated with higher salaries for employees both with and without disabilities (Canadian Council on Social Development,
2004). Nevertheless, Abrami et al. (2005), who showed that eLearning initiatives are important in Canadian postsecondary
education, also noted that very little is known about eLearning needs and concerns of students with disabilities. Clearly,
more research is needed. The role of computers in the education of individuals with disabilities was recently reviewed by
Berkowitz (2006), who also highlighted the need for campus based disability service providers to become more
knowledgeable about assistive computer technologies.
135
Although level of personal motivation was rated as a very important facilitator by most students, this was seen as especially
facilitating by students with learning disabilities. This finding is consistent with other research, as personal motivation was
identified by students with learning disabilities to be among the most important facilitators, along with family and friends
(Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995).
Nondisabled graduates and graduates with disabilities who were and who were not registered to receive disability related
services. The results also show that, overall, graduates with disabilities had significantly lower scores on personal situation
items as well as on the overall Index of Difficulty than nondisabled graduates. Examination of the items shows that
graduates with disabilities had less facilitating scores mainly on items dealing with their personal situation. Issues of
concern to students with disabilities in particular include poor health and the impact of their disability/impairment.
Improvements suggested by current students with disabilities as well as by graduates with and without disabilities were very
similar and were generally aimed at aspects of the Cegep environment. Of greatest importance to all groups were better
schedules, improving the college system, improving programs and courses in general, having better teachers, more available
computer technologies, support and help as well as improvements to the physical environment of the college. Changes
suggested by disability service providers generally focused on improving the accessibility of classrooms and facilities as
well as aspects of their services. Promoting collaboration and communication between staff, teachers and students,
increased funding for their services, and better availability of tutoring were also frequent suggestions among disability
service providers.
The data also suggest that it may be important for students with disabilities to register with their disability service provider.
For example, graduates with disabilities who registered for disability related services experienced certain aspects of their
Cegep environment, such as the availability of computers and course materials, as more facilitating than their peers with
disabilities who did not register. They also had overall Index of Difficulty (IDF) scores that were more facilitating than
graduates with disabilities who did not register. In fact, graduates with disabilities who did not register for services generally
had the worst scores, especially on Cegep environment related items. The IDF score for graduates who had registered for
disability related services was similar to that for graduates with no disabilities. However, when disability related items were
excluded, the registered graduates had IDF scores that were, on average, more facilitating than those of graduates without
disabilities. This was not true for unregistered graduates.
Consistent with reports by others (e.g., Skinner, 2004; Stewart & Morris-Wales, 2004), individuals with disabilities who
were registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep overwhelmingly indicated that disability related
accommodations were among the most important facilitators, along with sensitization and information dissemination about
disabilities to teachers. In the present investigation specific accommodations seen as helpful were: having a note taker or
interpreter in class, extended time for exams and assignments, accessible facilities, as well as Ministère de l'Éducation, du
Loisir et du Sport (MELS) and college policies which permit students with disabilities to take a reduced number of courses
and still be considered "full time students."
Not only has extended time been shown to be especially important to students with learning disabilities (Greenbaum,
Graham, & Scales, 1995) but it has also been shown to improve their scores. This has been found to be the case for both
algebra and reading comprehension tasks where students with learning disabilities, who initially scored significantly lower
than nondisabled peers under regular timing conditions, improved their scores and did not differ from nondisabled peers
when both groups experienced extended time conditions (Alster, 1997; Runyan, 1997).
Comparing students with disabilities and campus based disability service providers. In most cases students and service
providers agreed on what was important and on the nature of obstacles and facilitators. Exceptions show that although
students identified a variety of "personal situation" variables such as friends, their schedule, computers off-campus, physical
adaptations at home, and their finances as facilitators, disability service providers did not do so. Also, students noted the
following important obstacles that were not indicated by most service providers: too many and difficult courses, bad
schedules, the impact of their impairment, a problematic financial situation, and having to hold a job during the academic
term.
Campus based disability service providers, on the other hand, indicated that a knowledgeable service provider, preregistration of students with disabilities for courses before other students register, the attitude and willingness of professors
to adjust their courses to students' needs, and good counselling and academic advising were important facilitators – factors
136
generally not noted by students with disabilities. On the other hand, although students did not identify these concerns,
service providers were dissatisfied with various aspects of the disability related services and accommodations that they
provide, with the lack of information and sensitization about disabilities in the Cegep, with not having adequate knowledge
about disabilities and accommodations themselves, and with students' poor self-advocacy skills. Indeed, more knowledge
about computer based disability accommodations (Fichten et al., 2000, 2003, 2004; Gitlow & Wade, 2006) and students’
self-advocacy skills have long been seen as important for academic success by disability service providers (Stewart,
Cornish, & Somers, 1995) and the importance of the evolving role of faculty in the successful outcomes of students with
disabilities has been stressed in several recent publications (e.g., Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; Shaw & Scott, 2003; Vogel et
al., 2006).
What Happens After Graduation?
Our findings show little difference in the percentage of graduates with and without disabilities who continued their studies
after Cegep or in the percentages of those who were working full time or part time. Similarly, there was no significant
difference between the employment rates of graduates with and without disabilities.
The employment rates of graduates in career/technical programs was very high - over 95% for both graduates with and
without disabilities. Students enrolled in career/technical programs often have a work based component such as an
internship or a stage. Research has shown that this is seen as especially valuable by students with disabilities (Burgstahler,
2001; Burgstahler & Bellman, 2005).
Canadian statistics for people with and without disabilities in general also show little difference in the employment rate of
adults with and without disabilities (e.g., Statistics Canada 2001d, 2001e: 89% vs. 93%, respectively). There is an important
caveat, however, because the overall statistics for Canada show a huge difference between the proportions of people with and
without disabilities who are not in the labor force (i.e., 51% vs. 21%, respectively). This was not found for our sample of
Cegep graduates as the proportions of graduates with and without disabilities who were studying or not available to the labor
force for other reasons were very similar. These results resemble recent data from McGill University, where 60% of a sample
of individuals with disabilities who graduated two to three years previously indicated that they were employed. The remaining
40% reported being enrolled in a graduate program, pursuing mainly Master's or Ph.D. degrees (Wolforth, 2006).
Also, there was no significant difference between graduates with and without disabilities concerning whether their
employment was related to their field of studies. That the employment of graduates' with disabilities is related to their
studies was also found both at McGill University (Wolforth, 2006) as well as in a large U.S. study of university graduates
(Horn & Berktold, 1999). Indeed, the only important difference we found between graduates with and without disabilities
was that graduates with disabilities in career/technical programs were less likely than nondisabled graduates to obtain
employment in a field "closely" related to their field of study. This parallels findings showing that while most employees
with and without disabilities are satisfied with their jobs, workers with disabilities were somewhat less likely to be satisfied
than nondisabled employees (i.e., 80% vs. 91%, respectively: Canadian Council on Social Development, 2004).
Limitations Of This Investigation
One limitation of this investigation is that the graduate data are based on self reports of disability, and not on documented
conditions. It could be argued that self-definition is a key element in evaluating the impact of an impairment. This could, of
course, have affected our estimates of the number of individuals with disabilities in the Cegeps. Another, more important
concern in this regard involves the large number of unregistered graduates who indicated having a visual impairment.
Because we did not add the caveat that a visual impairment excluded individuals who simply needed glasses, it is possible
that several graduates who noted that they had a visual impairment may not have been considered to have a disability by
most definitions. Examination of the responses of these graduates suggests that in many cases they answered disability
specific questions in similar proportions to graduates with other impairments. Yet, in other cases the scores of graduates
indicating a visual impairment who responded to these items were more facilitating than expected (e.g., Availability of
course materials). In an attempt to eliminate any possible confounding of the results we re-ran the analyses on graduates
after excluding all who indicated a visual impairment; we are pleased to note that this did not change either the direction or
137
the nature of the findings. In addition, when it comes to a consideration of the proportion of graduates with and without
disabilities, it should be noted that even if we remove all 44 graduates who indicated having a visual impairment from the
sample of 182 graduates who indicated having a disability and from the whole sample of 1486 graduates who participated,
the 138 graduates who have a disability other than a visual impairment still constitute a substantial percentage of the total
number of graduate participants: 10%. Nevertheless, this important limitation needs to be considered when interpreting the
findings on graduates.
Another limitation revolves around the fact all that participants were volunteers, and, thus, may not have represented all
disability categories equally. In addition, it was possible that graduates without disabilities may not have bothered to answer
our questionnaire because the content seemed to be geared to graduates with disabilities. Although this possibility exists, we
do not believe that it is likely. First, most questions on the survey are equally applicable to graduates with and without
disabilities. Second, at Dawson College our portion of the institutional evaluation mailing constituted a small part of the
total questionnaire package. Yet the proportion of graduates with and without disabilities at Dawson College and at the
other two Cegeps was very similar, as was the overall response rate, especially keeping in mind that the Dawson
questionnaire package was considerably longer than that sent to graduates at the other Cegeps. So we do not believe that the
nature of the questionnaire had a large effect on the relative proportions of responses by graduates with and without
disabilities. Moreover, the proportion of current Dawson College students who self-reported having a disability on other
recent college-wide surveys was very similar to that found for the graduates in the present investigation (Jorgensen, 2006).
Conclusions
Overall, when it comes to individuals with disabilities in the Cegeps, the findings of this investigation show more positives
than negatives. The proportion of Cegep students with disabilities has increased during the past five years. Participants
reported substantially more facilitators than obstacles to student success, especially facilitators related to the Cegep
environment. And, graduates with and without disabilities continued their studies and successfully joined the labor force in
equal proportions.
There are, however, three major reasons for concern. First, the growth during the past five years in the number of students
with disabilities who registered to receive disability related services from their Cegep has been limited and remains under
1% of the student body, compared to the approximately 6% we found for the rest of Canada five years ago. Second, the
findings show that approximately nine out of 10 Cegep graduates who had a disability did not register for disability related
services. Furthermore, these unregistered graduates with disabilities experienced more obstacles and, in particular, more
Cegep related obstacles, than nondisabled graduates or graduates with disabilities who had registered for services. Third, the
findings highlight serious funding problems for Cegep based disability related services that need urgent attention.
138
Recommendations
Research recommendations.
Evaluate obstacles and facilitators to students with different impairments before and after changes are made to Cegep
policies and practices at the college.
• The Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) can be used to evaluate obstacles and facilitators for current students
with and without disabilities as well as in institutional research surveys of students and graduates
Routinely include questions related to students' disability status and the nature of their disabilities in research.
• Include disability related questions on all Cegep based surveys and make sure these are available in alternate
formats
• Include disability related questions on SRAM (Service régional d'admission du Montréal métropolitain) and SRAQ
(Service régional d'admission au collégial de Québec) surveys
Conduct research on the accessibility of eLearning and computer technologies.
• Given that the availability of computers and information technologies was seen as either an important obstacle or
an important facilitator, research on the accessibility of eLearning and computer technologies needs to be carried
out at the Cegeps
Evaluate the impact of funding of Cegeps' disability related services.
• The academic outcomes of students for whom the Cegeps receive funding should be compared to those of students
who are registered but for whom funding is not available (i.e., those with “recognized” vs. “not recognized”
disabilities). High school leaving grade can be used as a covariate or as a basis for equating the two groups of
students
Gather more information about students with disabilities who do not register to receive disability related services
• Those with disabilities who did not register for disability related services at their Cegep experienced more
obstacles to academic success than either individuals with disabilities who had registered for services or
nondisabled individuals.
• To ensure appropriate services to unregistered students with disabilities, more information is needed about them:
Why do they not register? What are their needs and concerns? How can their educational needs best be met when
they are not registered? Would they be better off academically if they were to register?
• There is a need to compare the academic outcomes of students with disabilities who are registered to receive
disability related services and those who are not. Here, too, high school leaving grade can be used as a covariate or
as a basis for equating the two groups of students
Evaluate the effectiveness of each type of Cegep based disability accommodation for students with different disabilities.
• Disability related accommodations were among the most important facilitators for individuals with disabilities
Conduct prospective and retrospective studies to investigate what happens to Cegep graduates.
• What happens to Cegep graduates with disabilities?
• Since such a large proportion of Cegep graduates continue their studies, how do graduates with disabilities fare at
university compared to their nondisabled peers?
• How do the careers of technical program graduates, including their salaries, progress in the long term?
139
Practice recommendations. These are intended primarily for MELS and college personnel, including campus based
disability service providers, faculty, managers of disability related resources, personnel responsible for student services,
financial aid, information and computer technologies, professional development, etc.
There is a need for evidence based practice in providing disability related funding, services and accommodations in the
Cegeps.
• Inform campus based disability service providers about relevant research findings to promote evidence based
practice
• Use the newly developed Cegep Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) in program evaluation and in evaluations of how
students with disabilities are faring at the Cegep
• Disability service providers can regularly administer the (CEQ) to their clientele to provide a snapshot of students'
current situations. This can help improve services by incorporating the students' views, tracking changes over time,
evaluating the impact of any improvements, and providing evidence to facilitate decision making by Cegep and
MELS based administrators
There are fewer students with disabilities who are registered to receive disability related services in Québec's colleges
compared to other provinces. Also, relatively few Cegep students with disabilities are registered to receive disability related
services from their Cegep. In addition, appropriate accommodations and information dissemination about disabilities to the
college community were seen as especially facilitating. This suggests that there is a need for greater visibility of disability
related services and accommodations in a variety of contexts.
• Increase the visibility of disability related services at the college to incoming students by sending pamphlets to all
students upon admission to the Cegep
• Develop a college guide for students with disabilities which provides information about the types of
accommodations, resources and facilities available, and information about successful outcomes of students with
disabilities, and make this available to all students, not only those with disabilities
• Develop a promotional video and pamphlet to discuss the services available to students with disabilities in the
Cegeps. Include services that could benefit students with learning, psychological/psychiatric, and medical
disabilities
• Publicize the success of students with disabilities and the availability of disability related services in various
settings (e.g., within the Cegep, in high schools, in rehabilitation centers, to community groups, to the Ordre des
conseillers et conseillères d’orientation et des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, to Emploi
Québec, to adapted employment centres such as the SEMOs)
• Include information on disability related accommodations available at the Cegeps at open house and high school
visits
• High school professionals and teachers need to motivate high school students with disabilities to attend Cegep
• Include disability related information in SRAM (Service régional d’admission du Montréal métropolitain) and
SRAQ (Service régional d'admission au collégial de Québec) publications such as the "Guide aux études" and the
"Guide général d'admission"
• Given the high priority accorded by both students with disabilities and disability service providers to sensitizing
and informing others about disabilities, design and distribute promotional materials to sensitize and inform college
personnel, especially faculty, about disabilities and appropriate accommodations
• Promotional materials could be designed and distributed to all college personnel, with a special emphasis on
faculty
• Promote the benefits of registering for disability related services in Cegep newsletters, web sites, and other
publications
• Suggest to faculty that they include a statement such as, "If you have a disability you may want to get in touch with
the Cegep's campus based disability service provider so that he or she can provide appropriate accommodations to
support your success" on all course outlines
• De-stigmatize registration for disability related services by including these among other services offered in the
Cegeps (e.g., exam invigilation service, not intended exclusively for students with disabilities)
140
Students stated that their financial situations and their need to work at a paid job during the term posed obstacles.
• College personnel and MELS policy makers need to pay more attention to students' financial situations. There is an
urgent need for better financial assistance to students with disabilities to reduce the need to work during the
academic term
• Lobby for more government support to students with disabilities
• Get involved in committees to make improvements to government financial aid and compensation programs for
students (e.g., social assistance, funding related to students' Cegep studies)
• Publicize the availability of scholarships to students with disabilities (cf. AQEIPS (Association québécoise des
étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire), NEADS (National Educational Association of Disabled
Students))
Students with disabilities indicated that friends constitute an important facilitator.
• Help develop a system of peer mentoring for students with disabilities
Employment is an important post-Cegep outcome.
• Provide support and training to students and graduates with disabilities to help them find summer and permanent
jobs and internships
• Encourage prospective employers and adapted employment agencies (e.g., IAM CARES, SEMOs) to recruit on
campus
Computer and information technologies, universal instructional design, and knowledgeable faculty were seen as important
facilitators.
• Enhance access to computer technologies with needed adaptations for both Cegep and off-campus use
• Promote universal instructional design and the accessibility of eLearning to Cegep based organizations such as
APOP (Association des applications pédagogiques de l'ordinateur au postsecondaire), AQPC (Association
québécoise de pédagogie collégiale), profWeb (2006), Clic (Bulletin collégial des technologies de l’information et
des communications)
• Provide more information about universal instructional design at professional development activities for faculty,
disability service providers, and eLearning practitioners and specialists at the Cegep (e.g., PERFORMA, education
degree programs)
• Enhance professors’ knowledge by developing faculty teams which can promote accessibility to their peers
• Include consideration of the accessibility of eLearning in Cegep information and communication technology
initiatives and activities
• Sensitize rehabilitation centers and officials from various ministries about the importance of computers for offcampus use
• Lobby for better funding for Cegep based adaptive and accessible computer tehcnologies
Campus based disability service providers believe that they are not sufficiently knowledgeable and that providing services
to students with disabilities is not an important Cegep priority.
• Improve the status, recognition and relevance of disability service providers in the colleges
• Ensure more job stability of campus based disability service providers
• Provide additional opportunities for professional development for campus based disability service providers to
become more knowledgeable about adaptive computer technologies and about how to better meet the needs of the
increasing numbers of "emerging clientele" students with disabilities (e.g., students with medical and psychological
impairments), whether these students are registered with the service or not
141
Improving services and accommodations for students with disabilities was seen as an important issue by both students and
service providers.
• Given that personal situation factors posed significant obstacles to students with disabilities, campus based
disability service providers need to pay more attention to ameliorating problematic situations in this realm.
• Provide services to students with all types of impairments
• Provide supplementary transportation services to supplement adapted transport
• Ensure better availability of tutoring
• Improve the accessibility of college buildings and facilities
• Because a good schedule was seen as an important facilitator, offer pre-registration to students with disabilities to
permit them to obtain schedules that better fit with their impairments
• Because having too many courses was seen as an obstacle by many, inform students with disabilities that they are
permitted to register for fewer courses and still be considered full-time students and encourage career/technical
program coordinators to allow students to complete their studies in more semesters than specified in the program
description
• Provide better links between inexperienced campus based disability service providers and the Eastern and Western
Quebec "centre d'accueil" Cegeps
Improved funding for disability related services at Cegeps was seen as an important priority.
• The MELS needs to reconsider its funding formula for services to students with disabilities. Changes need to
acknowledge the “unrecognized” disabilities of the "emerging clientele," such as learning disabilities, certain
medical conditions and psychiatric disabilities
142
References
Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Wade, C.A., Schmid, R., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D.,
Nicolaidou, I., Newman, S., Wozney L., & Peretiatkowicz, A. (2005). A state-of-the-field review of e-learning in
Canada: A rough sketch of the evidence, gaps and promising directions. Montreal: Centre for the Study of
Learning and Performance, Concordia University.
Alster, R.H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 222 -227.
AQEHPS. (1999). Les étudiants ayant des incapacités, un regard statistique. Montreal, Québec: Association Québécoise des
Étudiants Handicapés au Postsecondaire.
Asuncion, J.V., Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (2004). Access to information and instructional
technologies in higher education II: Practical recommendations for disability service providers. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 134-137.
Barile, M. Fichten, C.S. Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Généreux, C., Guimont, J.P. (2000, May). Informatique et technologies
adaptées dans les cégeps pour les étudiant(e)s ayant des limitations fonctionnelles (ITAC) : Résultats préliminaires
/ Computer and adaptive computer technologies for students with disabilities in the Cegeps: Preliminary results.
Presentation at the 12th Colloque de l'ARC, Hull, Québec. Abstracted in Propositions De Communication (p.11).
Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.coll-outao.qc.ca/sdrp/ARC/ARC_PROP.htm
Berkowitz, D. (2006). Literature review. Unpublished manuscript available from the author at [email protected]
Bouchard, F., & Veillette, D. with the collaboration of: Arcand, G., Beaupré, A., Brassard, S., Fichten, C.S., Fiset, D.,
Havel, A., Juhel, J.C., & Pelletier, A. (2005). Situation des étudiants ayant des incapacités dans les cégeps :
Rapport des travaux du comité. Drummondville, Québec: Office des personnes handicapées du Québec.
Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model to promote career success for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 16(3/4), 209-215.
Burgstahler, S. & Bellman, S. (2005). Perceived Benefits of Work-Based Learning: Differences between High school and
postsecondary students with disabilities. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Inclusive Education, 2, 1-19.
Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving Postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: designing professional
development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 135-147.
Butlin, G. (1999). Determinants of postsecondary participation. Education Quarterly Review, 5(3), 9-35. Statistics Canada
Cat. No. 81-003.
CADSPPE/ACCSEHP. (1999). Towards developing professional standards of service: A report on support for students with
disabilities in postsecondary education in Canada. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http://www.cacuss.ca/en/16publications/details.lasso?pid=327
Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD). (2002). CCSD's Disability Information Sheet. Number 4. Retrieved on
March 23, 2006, from http://www.ccsd.ca/drip/research/dis4/index.htm
Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD). (2004). Workers with disabilities and the impact of workplace
structures. CCSD's Disability Information Sheet Number 16. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.ccsd.ca/drip/research/drip16/drip16.pdf
Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD). (undated). First set of supplemental tables for CCSD's Disability
Information Sheet #3: Percent employed all year (1993, 1995, 1998), persons with and without disabilities, by age
and highest level of education attained (not enrolled as full time students). Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.ccsd.ca/drip/research/supp3b.htm
Cartier, M. (2000). Québec 2005 : quel contexte pour l'enseignement à distance? Presentation at the annual Conference of
the Canadian Association for Distance Education (CADE), Québec, Québec. Abstracted in the Conference
Program. Retrieved on March 23, 2006 from http://www.ulaval.ca/aced2000cade/francais/resumes.htm
Center for Universal Design (2006). About universal design (UD). Retrieved March 23, 2006, from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/newweb/about_ud/aboutud.htm
Charest, D. (1997, September). L'insertion sociale et l’intégration professionnelle des jeunes handicapés. Résultats d'un
sondage auprès des jeunes handicapés non diplômés au secondaire. Ministère de l'éducation. Direction de la
recherche. Direction de l'adaptation scolaire et des services complémentaires. Retrieved on March 23, 2006 from
http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/drech/handic97.pdf
Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., &
Vanderheiden, G. (1995). The principles of universal design (Version 1.1). Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://web.archive.org/web/19991008040849/http://trace.wisc.edu/text/univdesn/ud_princ/ud_princ.html
143
Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. (2000, May). Conditions for student success at the university level. Panorama, 5(2).
Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http://www.cse.gouv.qc.ca/e/pub/panorama/2000-05/Conditions.htm
Correspondance. (2006, February). Correspondance, 11(3). Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.ccdmd.qc.ca/correspo/Corr11-3/index.html
D'Amico, A. M. (2006). 2003–04 Percent with a disability, and the main type of condition or impairment (of those with a
disability) - NCES, NPSAS: 04 undergraduate students 09/06/2005: Table from the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 04) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S.
Department of Education. Available on February 1, 2006, from [email protected]
Direction générale de l’enseignement collégial. (1993). Regard sur l’enseignement collégial : indicateurs de l’évolution du
système 1993. (ISBN : 2-550-27729-5). Gouvernement du Québec : Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la
science.
Fawcett, G. (1996). Living with disability in Canada: An economic portrait. Hull, Québec: Human Resources Development
Canada, Office for Disability Issues.
Fédération des cégeps. (2006). Liste des cégeps. Retrieved on March 20, 2006 from
http://www.fedeCegeps.qc.ca/index.php?section=14
Fichten, C. S., Bourdon, C. V., Creti, L., & Martos, J. G. (1987). Facilitation of teaching and learning: What professors,
students with a physical disability and institutions of higher education can do. Natcon, 14, 45-69.
Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., & Asuncion, J.V. (1999). Learning technologies: Students with disabilities in postsecondary
education / Projet Adaptech : l'Utilisation des technologies d'apprentissage par les étudiant(e)s handicapé(e)s au
niveau postsecondaire. Final report to the Office of Learning Technologies, 1999, Spring. Ottawa: Human
Resources Development Canada. Available full text from ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) (ED
433625 EC 37369). Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/pubs/79160final_e.pdf.
Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C., Judd, D., & Guimont, J.P. (2000). Access
to college for all: ITAC Project - Computer and adaptive computer technologies in the Cegeps for students with
disabilities / L'accessibilité au cégep pour tous : Projet ITAC - informatique et technologies adaptées dans les
cégeps pour les étudiants handicapés. (309 pages). ISBN 155-016-837-1. Final report to PAREA. Québec:
Ministère de l'Éducation. Eric Document Reproduction Service (ED445457 and EC308063). Retrieved on March
23, 2006, from http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/pubs/ITACexee.doc
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., Robillard, C., & Wolforth, J. (2001). Computer technologies for
postsecondary students with disabilities II: Resources and recommendations for postsecondary service providers.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 59-82.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., De Simone, C., & Wells, D.
(2001). Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 185-221.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Fossey, M., Robillard, C., Barile, M., Judd, D., Généreux, C., Guimont, J.P., Senécal., J.,
Wolforth, J., Juhel, J.C., Lamb, D. (2001). "Accessibility of Campus Computers: Disability Services Scale"
(ACCdss): Adaptech's Canadian self-evaluation tool. Presentation to AHEAD, Portland, Oregon.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Généreux, C., Guimont, J.P., & Lamb, D. (2001). What decision
makers need to know about the NTIC needs of postsecondary students with disabilities: The Adaptech research
project. Proceedings / Actes du colloque Pour une technologie branchée sur la diversité, 166-172. Montréal,
Canada: Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'œuvre (CAMO) pour personnes handicapées.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., & Barile, M. with the Collaboration of: Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., Judd, D., Guimont, J.P.,
Tam, R., & Lamb, D. and Partner Representatives: Généreux, C., Juhel, J.C., Senécal, J., & Wolforth, J. (2001).
Computer and Information Technologies: Resources for the Postsecondary Education of Students with Disabilities
(143 pages). Final Report to the Office of Learning Technologies. 2001, ISBN 2-9803316-8-6. Hull, Québec:
Office of Learning Technologies. Resources in Education and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
(ED 458 733 and EC 308 679).
Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C., Judd, D., & Guimont, J.P. (2001). Projet
ITAC - L'accessibilité au cégep pour tous. Pédagogie Collégiale, 14(3), 4-8.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., & Lamb, D. (2003). Canadian postsecondary students
with disabilities: Where are they? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 71-114.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., Robillard, C., Judd, D., Wolforth, J., Senécal, J., Généreux, C.,
Guimont, J.P., Lamb, D., & Juhel, J-C. (2004). Access to information and instructional technologies in higher
education I: Disability service providers’ perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2),
114-133.
144
Fichten, C.S., Jorgensen, S., Havel, A., Barile, M. with the collaboration of Alapin, I., Fiset, D., Guimont, J.P., James, J.,
Juhel, J.C., Lamb, D., & Nguyen, M.N. (2005). Étudiant(e)s de niveau collégial ayant des incapacités / College
students with disabilities. Final report presented to PAREA. Québec: Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du
Sport.
Fichten, C.S., Landry, M.E., Jorgensen, S., Juhel, J.C., Tétreault, S. Barile, M., Havel, A., Fiset, D., Huard, G., & Amsel, R.
(2006). Étudiants ayant des incapacités aux cégeps: réussite et avenir II. Presentation at the FQRSC conference on
Action concertée pour persévérance et réussite scolaire - Enseignement collégial, Sainte-Foy, Québec.
Fiset, D. (2004). Global de la clientèle desservie pour la région Est à la session Automne 2004. Montréal: SAIDE, Cégep du
Vieux Montréal.
Fiset, D. (2004, February 2). Re : Fax. [email]. Montréal: SAIDE, Cégep du Vieux Montréal.
Fiset, D. (2006). Global de la clientèle desservie pour la région Ouest à la session Automne 2004. Montréal: SAIDE, Cégep
du Vieux Montréal.
Fortier, H. (2006). Les mesures spéciales et l'épreuve uniforme - résumé. Correspondance, 11(3), 9-11. Retrieved March 15,
2006, from http://www.ccdmd.qc.ca/correspo/Corr11-3/Mesures.html
Fougeyrollas, P., Cloutier, R., Bergeron, H., Cote, J., & St Michel, G. (1998). The Quebec classification: Disability creation
process. Quebec: International Network on the Disability Creation Process.
Fougeyrollas, P., Lippel, St-Onge, Gervais, Boucher, Bernard, & Lavoie, (1999). Vers une indemnisation équitable des
déficiences, des incapacités et des situations de handicap; document de réflexion. Présenté dans le cadre du
colloque de l’Office des personnes handicapées du Québec "Après 20 ans, assurer l’avenir; vers une compensation
équitable des besoins des personnes handicapées." Québec: Laboratoire de recherche sociale, IRDPQ.
Fougeyrollas P. & Beauregard L. (2001). Disability: A person/environment interaction social creation. In Albrecht, G.L.,
Seelman, K.D., and Bury, M. (Eds.). Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fournier, A. L., & Tremblay, D. (2003, October). Étude comparative de la clientèle étudiante ayant des besoins spéciaux
dans les universités québécoises depuis 1994. Québec: AQICEBS, Université Laval.
Généreux, C. (2001). Les étudiants ayant des incapacités, un regard statistique (2e édition). Montreal, Québec: Author.
Available at [email protected]
Gitlow, L., & Wade, J. (2006). What perceived skill and knowledge do Certified Psychiatric Rehabilitation Practitioners
(CPRPs) have regarding AT? Presentation at CSUN, Los Angeles. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from
http://www.tecmaine.org/docs/CSUN-06.rtf
Government of Canada. (1996, October). Equal citizenship for Canadians with disabilities: The will to act: Federal Task
Force on disability issues. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.
Government of Canada. (2002). Knowledge matters: Skills and learning for Canadians- Executive summary. Retrieved on
March 23, 2006 from http://www11.hrsdc.gc.ca/sl-ca/doc/summary.shtml Graham-Smith, S. & Lafayette, S.
(2004) Quality disability support for promoting belonging and academic success within the college community.
College Student Journal, 38(1), 90-99.
Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational and social experiences
during college. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 460-471.
Harris Interactive Inc. (2000). 2000 N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with disabilities. N.Y.: Harris Interactive.
Harris Interactive. (2004, June 25). Landmark disability survey finds pervasive disadvantages. Retrieved on March 23,
2006, from http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1422
Havel, A. (2006). Dawson College funded IEPs, not funded. Montréal: Services for Students with Disabilities, Dawson
College.
Henderson, C. (1995). College freshmen with disabilities: A triennial statistical profile. Washington DC: HEATH Resource
Center.
Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile -1998. Washington DC: HEATH.
Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile (Statistical Year 2000). Washington
DC: HEATH Resource Center. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.heath.gwu.edu/PDFs/collegefreshmen.pdf
HERMES-Information stratégique. (1999). De l’exclusion à l’intégration - État de la situation des jeunes adultes handicapés
en matière de formation et d’emploi. Rapport final présenté au Comité d’adaptation de la main d’œuvre pour
personnes handicapées (CAMO). CAMO: Montréal.
Hill, J.L. (1992). Accessibility: Students with disabilities in universities in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 22(1), 48-83.
Hill, J.L. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities at Canadian universities regarding institutional
policies. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11(1), 1-13.
145
Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation
and outcomes. (NCES 1999-187). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education - National Center for Education
Statistics.
Hubka, D., & Killean, E. (1996). Employment opportunities for postsecondary students and graduates with disabilities: A
national study. Ottawa: National Educational Association of Disabled Students.
Human Resources Development Canada. (2003). Disability in Canada: A 2001 profile. Human Resources Development
Canada. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/hip/odi/documents/PALS/PALS.pdf
Jorgensen, S., Fichten, C., Havel, A., Lamb D., & James, C. (2003). Students with and without disabilities at Dawson
College graduate at the same rate. The Journal for Vocational Needs Education, 25 (2&3), 44-46.
Jorgensen, S., Fichten, C., Havel, A., Lamb D., James, C., & Barile, M. (2003). Students with Disabilities at Dawson
College: Success and outcomes. Final report presented to PAREA / Étudiants ayant des incapacités au Dawson
College : réussite et avenir. Rapport final présenté à PAREA. Available in full text from ERIC (Education
Resources Information Centre) (ED481553).
Jorgensen, S., Fichten, C.S., Havel, A., Lamb, D., James, C., & Barile, M. (2005). Academic performance of college
students with and without disabilities: An archival study. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 39(2), 101-117.
Jorgensen, S. (2006). Dawson College, Office of Institutional Research. Unpublished data.
Jorgensen, S. (2006). Methodology for determining the employment and study status of Dawson graduates following
graduation. Montreal: Office of Institutional Research, Dawson College.
Juhel, J.C. (2000). Un cégep à ma porte : Guide d'accès aux services adaptés. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Cégep de Sainte-Foy.
Juhel, J.C. (2004). Étudiants handicapés dans les cégeps de l'Est - Automne 04. Québec, Québec: Les services adaptés.
Québec: Les services adaptés, Cégep de Sainte-Foy.
Juhel, J.C. (2006). Variation selon l'handicap de la clientèle desservie dans les 28 cégeps de l'Est. Handout at the Journée
des répondants, 2004-2005. Services adaptés, Cégep de Sainte-Foy.
Killean, E., & Hubka, D. (1999, July). Working towards a coordinated national approach to services, accommodations and
policies for postsecondary students with disabilities: Ensuring access to higher education and career training.
Report to the National Educational Association of Disabled Students. Ottawa: NEADS.
Kilmurray, L., Faba, N., with the collaboration of Alphonse, L., & Smith, F. (2005). Access to Academic Materials for PostSecondary Students with Print Disabilities. Ottawa: National Educational Association of Disabled Students
(NEADS).Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.neads.ca/en/about/projects/atam/atam_report_final_en.pdf
King, L., Mimouni, Z., & Courtemanche, C. (2006, March). Ce que les évaluations langagières nous indiquent sur les
troubles de lecture au collégial. presentation at the 31st LDAQ (Learning Disabilities Association of Quebec)
Conference, Montréal.
LeBlanc, A. (1990, February). L'étudiant handicapé a-t-il sa place au Cégep? Cegepropos, 7-9.
Leblanc, A. (1999). Integration of students with disabilities in the CEGEP network of Québec: A historical overview and
case study. M.Ed. thesis, Faculty of Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec.
Lemieux-Brassard, L. (1996). What characteristics would the revised version of the international classification of
impairment, disabilities and handicap have to have in order that it get our support? ICIDH Environmental Factors
International Network, 8(3), 19-21.
Lemieux-Brassard, L. (2002, September). Les définitions et les grandes catégories dans les nomenclatures du processus de
production du handicap. Document prepared for Réseau international sur le Processus de production du handicap.
Livneh, H. (2001). Denial and perceived visibility as predictors of adaptation to disability among college students. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(3/4), 227-234.
Loewen, G. & Tomassetti, V. (2002). Fostering independence through refreshable Braille. Presentation at the Developing
Skills for the New Economy: International Conference on career/technical and Vocational Education and Training,
Manitoba. Abstracted retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.umanitoba.ca/unevoc/2002conference/text/wp_loewen.shtml
Loewen, G. (2006). Implementing universal design theory in higher education. Communiqué, 6(2), 10.
McGuire, J.M., Scott, S.S., & Shaw, S.F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and
products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 11-21.
Miller, E.F. (2001, July). Supporting students with disabilities to achieve success in higher education. Presentation at the
Annual AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability) Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Mimouni, Z. (2006). La dyslexie développementale au collégial : un premier profil. Correspondance, 11(3), 17-22.
Retrieved on March 15, 2006, from http://www.ccdmd.qc.ca/correspo/Corr11-3/Dyslexie2.html
146
Ministère de l'éducation du Québec. (1998). Accessibilité au collégial des personnes handicapées, des autochtones, des
membres des communautés culturelles et des personnes participant au programme sport-études. Annexe F062 (No
de CT: 192640). Québec: MEQ.
Ministère de l'éducation du Québec. (1999) Adapting our schools to the needs of all students – A new direction for success:
Policy on special education. Retrieved on February 19, 2006, from
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/DGFJ/das/orientations/pdf/polite00.pdf
Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport (2000). La relance au collégial en formation préuniversitaire - Le Placement au 31
mars 2000 des personnes diplômées de 1998-1999. Québec: Ministère de l'Éuducation, Secteur de planification,
Direction de la recherche et de l'évaluation. Retrieved on March 23, 2006 from
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/Relance/Collegial/RelCol00/RelColPreU_2000.pdf
Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport (2004). La relance au collégial en formation technique - Le placement au 31 mars
2004 des personnes diplômées de 2002-2003. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport. Retrieved on
March 6, 2006, from http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/Relance/Collegial/RelCol04/RelanceCollegial2004.pdf
Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. (2005). 2005-2008 Strategic plan of the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir
et du Sport: Résumé PDF (version anglaise). Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved on Feb 19, 2006, from
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/administ/plan_strategique/2005-2008/shema-web_a.pdf
Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. (2005). Nombre d'étudiants inscrits au collégial à l'enseignement ordinaire et
à temps plein, selon le type de formation et la classe : Observations (1999-2004) et prévisions pour chacun des
trimestres d'automne (2005-2014) - Réseau collégial public. Québec: Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du
Sport, Direction de la recherche, des statistiques et des indicateurs. Retrieved on January 16, 2006, from
http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/stat/Sipeec/donnees_2005/Reseau_public_2004_2005.xls
Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. (2005). Observations et prévisions des effectifs étudiants au collégial :
Données par nom d'établissement. Québec : Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. Retrieved March 18,
2006, from http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/stat/Sipeec/Etabl_nom.htm
Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. (2005a). Observations et prévisions des effectifs étudiants de l'ensemble du
réseau collégial et du réseau public : passé récent, présent et perspectives (Code ministériel : 28-2778-01).
Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/stat/Sipeec/Etabl_nom.htm
Ministère de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie. (2000). Vue d'ensemble pour une Politique scientifique du
Québec - Document de consultation. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.ccquebec.ca/s4/detail_memoires.php3?id=12
MSSS. (1992). La politique de la santé et du bien-être. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved on March 23, 2006,
from http://hcsp.ensp.fr/hcspi/explore.cgi/ad020608.pdf
Munsey, C. (2006). New program helps students with disabilities access APA books. Monitor on Psychology, 37(1), 18.
Nguyen, M.N., Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., & Lévesque, J.A. (in press). Ce que les professeurs au cégep peuvent faire :
Facilitateurs et obstacles à la réussite des étudiants handicapés. Pédagogie Collégiale.
Nichols, F. (1998, June). L'après-cégep: Insertion professionnelle. Taux d'activité et de chômage en fonction des études
postsecondaires et des incapacités. Presentation at Rencontre de notre 10e année de rencontre avec les répondants.
Cégep Vieux Montréal, Montréal, Québec.
Outcomes Group. (1998). 1998 Outcomes of Former Students with Disabilities: BC College and Institute Student Outcomes
Report. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http://outcomes.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Publications/disabilities/Disabled.pdf
ProfWeb. (2006). Pour l’intégration des TIC. Le Carrefour des ressources pédagogiques collégiales. Retrieved on March 23,
2006, from http://site.profweb.qc.ca/
RateMyProfessors.Com. (2006). Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/index.jsp
RateMyTeachers.Ca. (2006). Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://www.ratemyteachers.ca/
Richardson, J.T.E. (2001). The representation and attainment of students with a hearing loss in higher education. Studies in
Higher Education, 26(2), 184-204.
Richardson, J.T.E., & Roy, A.W.N. (2002). The representation and attainment of students with a visual impairment in
higher education. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 20(1), 37-48.
RIPPH. (undated). Réseau international sur le processus de production du handicap (RIPPH). Retrieved on March 23, 2006,
from http://www.med.univ-rennes1.fr/sisrai/cidih.html
Roessler, R.T. & Kirk, H.M. (1998). Improving technology training services in postsecondary education: Perspectives of
recent college graduates with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 48-59.
Runyan, M.K. (2001). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without
learning disabilities Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 104 - 108.
Scott, S.S, Loewen, G., Funckes, C., & Kroeger, S. (2003). Implementing universal design in higher education: Moving
beyond the built environment. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16(2), 78-89
147
Senécal, J. (1998, March 17). Notre clientèle dévoile ses visages: Cégep stats - CUM. [Information Handout].
Shaw, S.F., & Scott, S.S. (2003). New Directions in Faculty Development. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 17(1), 3-9.
Skinner, M.E. (2004). College students with learning disabilities speak out: What it takes to be successful in postsecondary
education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 91-104.
Smith, D.J. & Nelson, J.R. (1993, April). Factors that influence the academic success of college students with disabilities.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Antonio, Texas. Eric
Document Reproduction Service (ED 363038).
SRAM (2003). Le service régional d'admission du Montréal métropolitain. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.sram.qc.ca
Statistics Canada (1992). Full time enrollment by level, province, institution, and sex, 1991-1992 (Universities: Enrollment
and Degrees pp. 30 -41, Cat. No. 81-204). Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (1992, October 13). 1991 Health and activity limitation survey. The Daily. Catalogue 11-001E. ISSN:
0827-0465.
Statistics Canada. (2001, June). Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics profile series: Canadians with disabilities. Catalogue
No. 85F0033MIE. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85F0033MIE/85F0033MIE2001002.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2001). Community college postsecondary enrollment (1998-1999).
Statistics Canada. (2001). University enrollment, full time and part-time, by sex (1998-1999).
Statistics Canada. (2001). Labour force activity for adults without disabilities, by sex and age groups, Canada, 2001.
Retrieved on March 14, 2006, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-587-XIE/tables/html/table4/can4.htm
Statistics Canada. (2002). A profile of disability in Canada, 2001: Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS).
Catalogue no. 89-577-XIE. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-577XIE/index.htm
Statistics Canada. (2002, December). A profile of disability in Canada, 2001 – Tables. Catalogue no. 89-579-XIE. Retrieved
on March 23, 2006, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-579-XIE/89-579-XIE02001.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2003). Census of population: Labour force activity, occupation, industry, class of worker, place of work,
mode of transportation, language of work and unpaid work. The Daily, February 11, 2003. Retrieved on June 17,
2003 from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030211/d030211a.htm
Statistics Canada. (2003). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, 2001: Education, employment and income of adults
with and without disabilities - Tables. (Catalogue no. 89-587-XIE).
Statistics Canada. (2003). Education, employment and income of adults with and without disabilities - Tables: Table 3.1 Labour force activity for adults with disabilities, by sex and age groups, Canada and provinces, 2001. Retrieved on
June 19, 2005, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-587-XIE/tables/csv/table3/can3.csv
Stewart, D., Cornish, P., & Somers, K. (1995). Empowering Students with Learning Disabilities in the Canadian
Postsecondary Educational System. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 29(1), 71-79.
Stewart, D.W., & Morris-Wales, J. (2004). Do accommodations improve the academic performance of students with
learning disabilities? A complex answer to a simple question. Communiqué, 4(2), 8-11.
Stodden, R. A., & Dowrick, P.W. (2000). Postsecondary education and employment of adults with disabilities. American
Rehabilitation, 22, 19-23.
Taillon, J. and Paju, M. (1999). The Class of 95: Report of the 1997 National Survey of 1995 Graduates, Ottawa: Human
Resources Development Canada and Statistics Canada. (Catalogue SP-121-04-99).
Tousignant, J. (1995). La vie étudiante des personnes handicapées dans les établissements d'enseignement universitaire
québécois (un bilan des années 1989 à 1995). Québec: Ministère de l'éducation: Direction générale des affaires
universitaires et scientifiques.
Tremblay, D, Gagné, Y., & Le May, S. (2004). Statistiques concernant les étudiants ayant des besoins spéciaux dans les
universités québécoises : 2003-2004 (sommaire). Québec: AQICEBS, Université Laval. Retrieved on June 19,
2005, from http://www.aqicebs.qc.ca/documents/SOM_0304.pdf
Tremblay, D. & Le May, S. (2005). Statistiques concernant les étudiants ayant des besoins spéciaux dans les universités
québécoises : 2004-2005 (sommaire). Québec: AQICEBS, Université Laval. Retrieved on June 21, 2005, from
http://www.aqicebs.qc.ca/documents/SOMMAIRE_0405.pdf
Vogel, S.A., Leyser, Y., Burgstahler, S., Sligar, S.R., & Zecker, S.G. (2006). Faculty knowledge and practices regarding
students with disabilities in three contrasting institutions of higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 18(2), 109-123.
148
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R. & Levine, P. (2005). National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2): Changes
Over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. Washington, DC: Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved on January 31, 2006 from
http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/str6_completereport.pdf
Wolfe, G., & Stokley, L. (1998). Where are they now? Post-school outcomes for college students with disabilities. Paper
presented at the AHEAD Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Wolfe, D.A., & Gertler, M.S. (2001). The new economy: An overview. Report for the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada. Toronto: Munk Centre for International Studies.
Wolforth, J. (2006). Follow-up questionnaire results of 2002-2003 McGill University graduates. Montréal: Office for
Students with Disabilities, McGill University.
149
Appendix - Cegep Experience Questionnaire: English and French Versions
English versions: CEGEP EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
•
•
•
Regular print
Large print
Word
•
•
•
Regular print
Large print
Word
French versions: QUESTIONNAIRE SUR VOTRE EXPÉRIENCE AU CÉGEP
150
Using the following scale, indicate in what way each of the items below has affected your Cegep studies by
making them:
1
2
3
4
5
6
[ N/A ]
Much
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
Much
Not
Harder
Harder
Harder
Easier
Easier
Easier
Applicable
Personal Situation
1. ______Financial situation
2. ______Paid employment
3. ______Family situation
4. ______Friends
5. ______Level of personal motivation
6. ______Study habits
7. ______Previous education experiences
8. ______Health
9. ______Impact of my disability
Cegep Environment
10. ______Level of difficulty of courses
11. ______Course load
12. ______Course schedule
13. ______Attitudes of professors
14. ______Attitudes of non-teaching staff (e.g., registration staff, financial aid staff)
15. ______Attitudes of students
16. ______Availability of computers on campus
17. ______Training on computer technologies on campus
18. ______Availability of course materials
19. ______Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities (e.g., clubs, sports, social activities)
20. ______Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs
21. ______Accessibility of building facilities (e.g., doorways, classrooms, labs)
22. ______Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses
23. ______Availability of disability related services at the Cegep
24. ______Availability of financial aid
25. ______Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
26. ______Public transportation
27. ______Availability of computers off-campus
28. ______Training on computer technologies off-campus
29. ______Disability-related support services off-campus
30. ______Availability of adapted transport for student with disabilities
31. ______Coordination between disability-related support services (e.g., attendant care, adapted transport) and school
32. ______Availability of adaptations / career/technical aids at home (e.g., ramp, TDD)
151
Using the following scale, indicate in what way
each of the items below has affected your Cegep
studies by making them:
1 = Much Harder
2 = Moderately Harder
3 = Slightly Harder
4 = Slightly Easier
5 = Moderately Easier
6 = Much Easier
N/A = Not Applicable
Put a number beside all items. If an item is not
applicable to you, respond with N/A (not
applicable).
Personal Situation
1. ______ Financial situation
2. ______ Paid employment
3. ______ Family situation
4. ______ Friends
5. ______ Level of personal motivation
6. ______ Study habits
7. ______ Previous education experiences
8. ______ Health
9. ______ Impact of my disability
152
Cegep Environment
10. ______ Level of difficulty of courses
11. ______ Course load
12. ______ Course schedule
13. ______ Attitudes of professors
14. ______ Attitudes of non-teaching staff (e.g.,
registration staff, financial aid staff)
15. ______ Attitudes of students
16. ______ Availability of computers on campus
17. ______ Training on computer technologies on
campus
18. ______ Availability of course materials
19. ______ Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities (e.g., clubs, sports, social
activities)
20. ______ Willingness of professors to adapt
courses to my needs
21. ______ Accessibility of building facilities (e.g.,
doorways, classrooms, labs)
22. ______ Accessibility of Cegep physical
education courses
23. ______ Availability of disability related services
at the Cegep
153
Government and Community Supports and
Services
24. ______ Availability of financial aid
25. ______ Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep
26. ______ Public transportation
27. ______ Availability of computers off-campus
28. ______ Training on computer technologies offcampus
29. ______ Disability related support services offcampus
30. ______ Availability of adapted transport for
student with disabilities
31. ______ Coordination between disability related
support services (e.g., attendant care, adapted
transport) and school
32. ______ Availability of adaptations / technical
aids at home (e.g., ramp, TDD)
Thank you for your participation.
154
For items 1-32, using the following scale, indicate in what way each of the items below has affected
your Cegep studies by making them
1 = Much Harder
2 = Moderately Harder
3 = Slightly Harder
4 = Slightly Easier
5 = Moderately Easier
6 = Much Easier
N/A = Not Applicable
Questions 1 to 9 concern your Personal Situation. Use the scale above, where 1 equals much
harder and 6 equals much easier. Indicate to what extent each item has affected your Cegep studies.
If an item is not applicable to you, respond with N/A (not applicable).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Financial situation:
Paid employment:
Family situation:
Friends:
Level of personal motivation:
Study habits:
Previous education experiences:
Health:
Impact of my disability:
Questions 10 to 23 concern your Cegep Environment. Use the scale above, where 1 equals much
harder and 6 equals much easier. Indicate to what extent each item has affected your Cegep studies.
If an item is not applicable to you, respond with N/A (not applicable).
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Level of difficulty of courses:
Course load:
Course schedule:
Attitudes of professors:
Attitudes of non-teaching staff (e.g., registration staff, financial aid staff):
Attitudes of students:
Availability of computers on campus:
Training on computer technologies on campus:
Availability of course materials:
Opportunity to participate in Cegep extracurricular activities (e.g., clubs, sports, social activities):
Willingness of professors to adapt courses to my needs:
Accessibility of building facilities (e.g., doorways, classrooms, labs):
Accessibility of Cegep physical education courses:
Availability of disability related services at the Cegep:
155
Questions 24 to 32 concern Government and Community Supports and Services. Use the scale
above, where 1 equals much harder and 6 equals much easier. Indicate to what extent each item has
affected your Cegep studies. If an item is not applicable to you, respond with N/A (not applicable).
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Availability of financial aid:
Availability of tutoring outside the Cegep:
Public transportation:
Availability of computers off-campus :
Training on computer technologies off-campus:
Disability related support services off-campus:
Availability of adapted transport for student with disabilities:
Coordination between disability related support services (e.g., attendant care, adapted transport)
and school:
32. Availability of adaptations / technical aids at home (e.g., ramp, TDD):
Thank you for your participation.
156
QUESTIONNAIRE SUR VOTRE EXPÉRIENCE AU CÉGEP
À l’aide de l’échelle suivante, indiquez comment chaque item a influencé vos études au Cégep en les rendant :
1
Plus
difficile
2
Modérément
plus difficile
3
Légèrement
plus difficile
4
Légèrement
plus facile
5
Modérément
plus facile
6
[ N/A ]
Non
Applicable
Plus facile
Inscrivez le chiffre correspondant pour chaque item. Si un élément ne s’applique pas à votre situation, répondez par N/A (non
applicable).
1. ______Situation financière
2. ______Travail rémunéré
3. ______Situation familiale
4. ______Ami(es)
5. ______Degré de motivation personnelle
6. ______Gestion du travail scolaire (méthode, organisation)
7. ______Expériences scolaires antérieures
8. ______État de santé
9. ______Impact de mon incapacité
Environnement du Cégep
10. ______Degré de difficulté des cours
11. ______Charge reliée au nombre de cours
12. ______Horaire des cours
13. ______Attitude des professeurs
14. ______Attitude du personnel non enseignant (ex. : personnel du registrariat /de l’aide financière)
15. ______Attitude des étudiants
16. ______Disponibilité des ordinateurs dans le Cégep
17. ______Formation sur les technologies informatiques au Cégep
18. ______Disponibilité du matériel de cours
19. ______Opportunité de participer aux activités parascolaires au Cégep (ex. : clubs, sports, activités sociales)
20. ______Ouverture des professeurs à adapter les cours en fonction de mes besoins
21. ______Accessibilité des installations physiques (ex. : portes, salles de cours, laboratoires)
22. ______Accessibilité aux cours d’éducation physique au Cégep
23. ______Disponibilité des services au Cégep pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités
Soutien et services de la communauté et du gouvernement
24. ______Disponibilité d’une aide financière
25. ______Disponibilité de tutorat à l’extérieur du Cégep
26. ______Service de transport public
27. ______Disponibilité des ordinateurs à l’extérieur du Cégep
28. ______Formation sur les technologies informatiques à l’extérieur du Cégep
29. ______Services adaptés pour les étudiant(es) ayant des incapacités à l’extérieur du Cégep
30. ______Disponibilité d’un moyen de transport adapté pour les étudiant(es) ayant des incapacités
31. ______Coordination des horaires des services spécialisés pour les étudiant(es) ayant des incapacités
(ex. : préposé(e) aux soins, transport adapté) et du Cégep
32. ______Disponibilité des adaptations / aides techniques à mon domicile (ex. : rampe d’accès, ATS)
157
Questionnaire sur votre expérience au cégep
À l’aide de l’échelle suivante, indiquez comment
chaque item a influencé vos études au cégep en
les rendant :
1 = Plus difficile
2 = Modérément plus difficile
3 = Légèrement plus difficile
4 = Légèrement plus facile
5 = Modérément plus facile
6 = Plus facile
N/A = Non Applicable
Inscrivez le chiffre correspondant pour chaque
item. Si un élément ne s’applique pas à votre
situation, répondez par N/A (non applicable).
1. ______ Situation financière
2. ______ Travail rémunéré
3. ______ Situation familiale
4. ______ Ami(es)
5. ______ Degré de motivation personnelle
6. ______ Gestion du travail scolaire (méthode,
organisation)
7. ______ Expériences scolaires antérieures
8. ______ État de santé
9. ______ Impact de mon incapacité
158
Environnement du cégep
10. ______ Degré de difficulté des cours
11. ______ Charge reliée au nombre de cours
12. ______ Horaire des cours
13. ______ Attitude des professeurs
14. ______ Attitude du personnel non enseignant
(ex. : personnel du registrariat /de l’aide financière)
15. ______ Attitude des étudiants
16. ______ Disponibilité des ordinateurs dans le cégep
17. ______ Formation sur les technologies
informatiques au cégep
18. ______ Disponibilité du matériel de cours
19. ______ Opportunité de participer aux activités
parascolaires au cégep (ex. : clubs, sports,
activités sociales)
20. ______ Ouverture des professeurs à adapter
les cours en fonction de mes besoins
21. ______ Accessibilité des installations physiques
(ex. : portes, salles de cours, laboratoires)
22. ______ Accessibilité aux cours d’éducation
physique au cégep
23. ______ Disponibilité des services pour les
étudiants ayant des incapacités au cégep
159
Soutien et services de la communauté et du
gouvernement
24. ______ Disponibilité d’une aide financière
25. ______ Disponibilité de tutorat à l’extérieur du
cégep
26. ______ Service de transport public
27. ______ Disponibilité des ordinateurs à
l’extérieur du cégep
28. ______ Formation sur les technologies
informatiques à l’extérieur du cégep
29. ______ Services adaptés pour les étudiant(es)
ayant des incapacités à l’extérieur du cégep
30. ______ Disponibilité d’un moyen de transport
adapté pour les étudiant(es) ayant des
incapacités
31. ______ Coordination des horaires des services
spécialisés pour les étudiant(es) ayant des
incapacités (ex. : préposé(e) aux soins, transport
adapté) et du cégep
32. ______ Disponibilité des adaptations / aides
techniques à mon domicile (ex. : rampe d’accès,
ATS)
Merci de votre participation.
160
Questionnaire sur votre expérience au cégep
Ce questionnaire contient 32 items.
Pour les items de 1 à 32 utilisez l’échelle suivante et indiquez comment chaque item a influencé vos
études au cégep en les rendant
1 = Plus difficile
2 = Modérément plus difficile
3 = Légèrement plus difficile
4 = Légèrement plus facile
5 = Modérément plus facile
6 = Plus facile
N/A = Non Applicable
Les items de 1 à 9 portent sur votre situation personnelle. Indiquez comment chacun de ces items a
influencé vos études au cégep en utilisant l’échelle ci-dessus, où 1 signifie le plus difficile et 6 signifie
le plus facile. Si un élément ne s’applique pas à vote situation répondez par N/A (non applicable)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Situation financière :
Travail rémunéré :
Situation familiale :
Ami (es) :
Degré de motivation personnelle :
Gestion du travail scolaire (méthode, organisation) :
Expériences scolaires antérieures :
État de santé :
Impact de mon incapacité :
Les items 10 à 23 portent sur l’environnement du cégep. Indiquez comment chacun de ces items a
influencé vos études au cégep en utilisant l’échelle ci-dessus, où 1 signifie le plus difficile et 6 signifie
le plus facile. Si un élément ne s’applique pas à vote situation répondez par N/A (non applicable)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Degré de difficulté des cours :
Charge reliée au nombre de cours :
Horaire des cours :
Attitude des professeurs :
Attitude du personnel non enseignant (ex. personnel du registrariat /de l’aide financière) :
Attitude des étudiants :
Disponibilité des ordinateurs dans le cégep :
Formation sur les technologies informatiques au cégep :
Disponibilité du matériel de cours :
Opportunité de participer aux activités parascolaires au cégep (ex. clubs, sports, activités sociales) :
Ouverture des professeurs à adapter les cours en fonction de mes besoins :
Accessibilité des installations physiques (ex. portes, salles de cours, laboratoires) :
Accessibilité aux cours d’éducation physique au cégep :
Disponibilité des services pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités au cégep :
161
Les items 24 à 32 portent sur le soutien et les services de la communauté et du gouvernement.
Indiquez comment chacun de ces items a influencé vos études au cégep en utilisant l’échelle cidessus, où 1 signifie le plus difficile et 6 signifie le plus facile. Si un élément ne s’applique pas à vote
situation répondez par N/A (non applicable)
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Disponibilité d’une aide financière :
Disponibilité de tutorat à l’extérieur du cégep :
Service de transport public :
Disponibilité des ordinateurs à l’extérieur du cégep :
Formation sur les technologies informatiques à l’extérieur du cégep :
Services adaptés pour les étudiant (es) ayant des incapacités à l’extérieur du cégep :
Disponibilité d’un moyen de transport adapté pour les étudiant (es) ayant des incapacités :
Coordination des horaires des services spécialisés pour les étudiant (es) ayant des incapacités (ex.
préposé(e) aux soins, transport adapté) et du cégep :
32. Disponibilité des adaptations / aides techniques à mon domicile (ex. rampe d’accès, ATS) :
Merci de votre participation.

Their Future and Success (English, PDF)

Transcription

Similar documents

94546 careerlink 3x10.crtr

The evacuation of people with disabilities from Corpus

bowling challenge - Friends of We Care

Place des Arts

Arkansas Disability Coalition Parent Training and Information Center

The Work of Centers for Independent Living

Annual ADA Celebration a Great Success

Programm conference

Brotoloc South Brochure

Westney Heights Plaza Ajax - December 10, 2015